US considering Preemptive Strike against North Korea.

Cheerful Spring

BoatMad wrote: »

the military activity associated with Iraqi Freedom!, lasted 21 days ( thats three weeks ) , I lost a bet as I had said 6 weeks

The US can act with impunity over NK in the air, the technology level of the US in the air is streets ahead

The NK sir defense is largely based around outdated soviet era missiles -75, S-125, S-200 , with some ( limited number ) of more sophisticated KN-06 systems

All these systems are easily targeted by anti-SAM systems , most are fixed or only partially mobile

America took out Saddam army in Kuwait. You think his army was going to do better years later? The North Koreans have a new ant-air battery is similar to S300 the most advanced system the Russians use to shoot down aircraft.

This is it on this video.

BoJack Horseman

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

North Korea only had 200,000 men at the start of the Korean war and they held their own for nearly 3 years. If Kim call upon millions of men to fight for him......

Your backsliding now friend.

You said it can happen.
Now you have to prove that it can.

So, yet again.
Demonstrate for us how your dear leader is going to feed and water 10 million men, women, boys and girls as they walk defenseless into the south while being chewed up by the might of 2 first world militaries?

Once you have finally gotten around to the logistical reality of sustaining such an implausible force for more than an hour, then you will move on to showing us how this childs crusade will be commanded and controlled in an environment of high electro-magnetic interference and jamming.

so.... be ready for that one too.

But You still haven't sorted out the food aspect yet, so focus on that proof first.

BoatMad

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

North Korea only had 200,000 men at the start of the Korean war and they held their own for nearly 3 years. If Kim call upon millions of men to fight for him, a huge force, even the South Koreans and America may have trouble dealing with this?

Any study of the Korean war will show you the US underestimated the Chinese PLA involvement, secondly they ( the US) fought the war using ww2 tactics and organisation and ( b) politically it was a UN action

The US military is now organised differently , along the lines of combined forces discipline , China will not be underestimated this time ,( nor will Bejing enter this war militarily anyway )

The NK army is largely structured as per the end of the Korean war, The US military is a 21th century military superpower

BoatMad

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

America took out Saddam army in Kuwait. You think his army was going to do better years later? The North Koreans have a new ant-air battery is similar to S300 the most advanced system the Russians use to shoot down aircraft.

This is it on this video.

The US would subdue NK is a matter of weeks if the US military are given a free hand , using conventional means

This is not the problem for the US, its what to do afterwards thats the issue

Cheerful Spring

BoatMad wrote: »

Any study of the Korean war will show you the US underestimated the Chinese PLA involvement, secondly they ( the US) fought the war using ww2 tactics and organisation and ( b) politically it was a UN action

The US military is now organised differently , along the lines of combined forces discipline , China will not be underestimated this time ,( nor will Bejing enter this war militarily anyway )

The NK army is largely structured as per the end of the Korean war, The US military is a 21th century military superpower

America power? They won WW2 with help from the British and other allies including the Russians. They could not beat the army in Vietnam ( least they got stalemated) everyone agree's the Vietnamese army was mostly made up of peasantry. They got knocked back by the peasant Chinese army in Korea. They can't even win in Afghanistan. They beat a Iraqi poorly lead army and everyone now thinking they are best army that ever existed?

Gatling

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

America power? They won WW2 with help from the British and other allies including the Russians. They could not beat the army in Vietnam ( least they got stalemated) everyone agree's the Vietnamese army was mostly made up of peasantry. They got knocked back by the peasant Chinese army in Korea. They can't even win in Afghanistan. They beat a Iraqi poorly lead army and everyone now thinking they are best army that ever existed?

Lol give over

TotalReality

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

America power? They won WW2 with help from the British and other allies including the Russians. They could not beat the army in Vietnam ( least they got stalemated) everyone agree's the Vietnamese army was mostly made up of peasantry. They got knocked back by the peasant Chinese army in Korea. They can't even win in Afghanistan. They beat a Iraqi poorly lead army and everyone now thinking they are best army that ever existed?

America has the best army in existence.
Shame their foreign policy is muck.
They'll sort out NK no problems.
China will help stabilize NK afterwards.

RobbingBandit

This is like reading the script for Team America 2, Donald Duck'd it all up. tm.

BoJack Horseman

Gatling wrote: »

Lol give over

Didn't you hear him Gatling?

He thinks 10 million men, women and children are going to invade the South with no food or water.... on foot

Meahwhile, a dozen A-10's are regaling them by singing the song of their people.

If Carlsberg did fanatics.... it would be this lad.

BoatMad

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

America power? They won WW2 with help from the British and other allies including the Russians. They could not beat the army in Vietnam ( least they got stalemated) everyone agree's the Vietnamese army was mostly made up of peasantry. They got knocked back by the peasant Chinese army in Korea. They can't even win in Afghanistan. They beat a Iraqi poorly lead army and everyone now thinking they are best army that ever existed?

You must be reading a whole lot of different textbooks in a parallel dimension

The UK was effectively a complete spent force militarily after the first two years of WW2, it simply hadn't the resources to keep fighting without enormous propping up from the US

The germans were largely defeated by the Soviets, and the US primarily intervened ( aka D- Day ) to prevent the Soviets from taking over the whole of Western Europe ( to the Med)

Any study of Vietnam., shows why the US failed to succeed, primarily because they scaled up to late, they hadn't learned enough lessons from the Korean war, and they tried to overcome the NVA on the ground

Iraq shows how its done, You simply avoid mass battles and use technical ability and speed , backed by Air superiority to reach key military objectives ( like taking Pyongyang and deposing the leadership etc )

Vietnam was also entirely compromised by Chinese involvement, that wont happen in NK this time , the Chinese have too much to loose


Afghanistan is largely a guerrilla style activity , the US military did control any terrority it wanted to, the issue was how to politically control it and using the US army as an instrument of political control is its downfall.

BoatMad

now thinking they are best army that ever existed

NO , but they are currently the biggest best equipped and most professional on the planet at this time. " Best " is a very subjective term

jackboy

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

America power? They won WW2 with help from the British and other allies including the Russians. They could not beat the army in Vietnam ( least they got stalemated) everyone agree's the Vietnamese army was mostly made up of peasantry. They got knocked back by the peasant Chinese army in Korea. They can't even win in Afghanistan. They beat a Iraqi poorly lead army and everyone now thinking they are best army that ever existed?

The US have had some issues in ground warfare but there would be no ground war here. Combination of air and naval power will do the job. Any NK soldier that approaches the border will be quickly shredded.

Infini

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

America power? They won WW2 with help from the British and other allies including the Russians. They could not beat the army in Vietnam ( least they got stalemated) everyone agree's the Vietnamese army was mostly made up of peasantry. They got knocked back by the peasant Chinese army in Korea. They can't even win in Afghanistan. They beat a Iraqi poorly lead army and everyone now thinking they are best army that ever existed?

Vietnam was lost because they lost public support for that war. That's what caused it more so than anything else. They also had China and Russia in the back supporting them too and preventing the US from proceeding into North Vietnam. In the First Korean War, China was well armed after they won their civil war by Soviet Russia as well but even at that they never took the south it ended in a stalemate in the end. Afghanistan is a rural quagmire but the Taliban arent back in power either so its a draw there. You also forget Russia got nowhere there either and they wrecked the place first. As for Iraq they knew full well they couldnt handle them head on they went instead into an insurgency and they still got beaten. They only reared their heads as a part of ISIS AFTER the US left originally and they're still losing when they came back.

SeanW

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It not hard to destroy vehicles travelling on an open road in a desert area. North Korea is like Vietnam on steroids. The army lives underground and has prepared it's facilities for air bombardment from the air. Even the Americans can not continue bombing all day.

MOABs can kill an underground army by consuming all the oxygen in the target zone.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

North Korea only had 200,000 men at the start of the Korean war and they held their own for nearly 3 years. If Kim call upon millions of men to fight for him, a huge force, even the South Koreans and America may have trouble dealing with this?

Um ... North Korea "held their own" because the Chinese came in on their side. NK would have been obliterated had Red China not saved their bacon.

Deleted User wrote: »

A picture says a thousand words!

Yes, only this one is lying. North Korea may not have the military force of the US in terms of ability to fight a military-to-military conflict, but it does have one specialty - the ability (and, I believe, the desire) to murder civilians. North Korea keeps an active stockpile of (among other things) chemical weapons such as VX nerve agents, prohibited under international law and abandoned by civilised countries (the US has a small amount of these nerve agents for scientific purposes, but they are not part of the U.S. deterrence strategy). Kim on the other hand uses political prisoners as test subjects for chemical weapons so that he knows how much he needs to kill every civilian in Seoul when he attacks with it. Not if. When. The North Korean regime are nothing more than murderers, who have given civilised countries casus belli to destroy them dozens of times over. The only thing stopping the Kim regime from murdering millions of civilised people is the threat of annihilation from the free world. But the further they are permitted to develop their weapons programmes, the greater the threat they pose.

BoatMad

Vietnam was lost because they lost public support for that war.

Actually thats wasn't the military reason, thats a reason expounded by those that simply havent looked at the US military campaign in Vietnam and tried to renationalise why the US pulled out.

Afghanistan is a rural quagmire but the Taliban arent back in power either so its a draw there.

NO , again the US militarily dominated Afghanistan, whereas the Russians count maintain air superiroty ( largely due to US ground to air material) . The issue for the US military is how to " continue to subdue " a nation that doesn't want you there, but where there is no functioning nation , thats the issue with Afghanistan and Iraq. You can see the issue clearly in Syria , US airpower was decisive yet the US has little involvement with the ground war or the aftermaths of the carnage and destruction

s for Iraq they knew full well they couldnt handle them head on they went instead into an insurgency and they still got beaten. They only reared their heads as a part of ISIS AFTER the US left originally and they're still losing when they came back.

ISIS was not in combat with the US, ISIS was primarily a reaction to the disestablishment of the Sunni population and the fear of Shia/Iranian domination. ( A factor the US shamefully promoted )

BoatMad

Yes, only this one is lying. North Korea may not have the military force of the US in terms of ability to fight a military-to-military conflict, but it does have one specialty - the ability (and, I believe, the desire) to murder civilians. North Korea keeps an active stockpile of (among other things) chemical weapons such as VX nerve agents, prohibited under international law and abandoned by civilised countries (the US has a small amount of these nerve agents for scientific purposes, but they are not part of the U.S. deterrence strategy). Kim on the other hand uses political prisoners as test subjects for chemical weapons so that he knows how much he needs to kill every civilian in Seoul when he attacks with it. Not if. When. The North Korean regime are nothing more than murderers, who have given civilised countries casus belli to destroy them dozens of times over. The only thing stopping the Kim regime from murdering millions of civilised people is the threat of annihilation from the free world. But the further they are permitted to develop their weapons programmes, the greater the threat they pose.

well that reads like " weapons of mass destruction - lets get them boys "

I see the softening up processes are well underway !

surely the arguments at this stage after Iraq could be a little more subtle !!

SeanW

BoatMad wrote: »

well that reads like " weapons of mass destruction - lets get them boys "

I see the softening up processes are well underway !

surely the arguments at this stage after Iraq could be a little more subtle !!

Saddam could not have given up his WMD because he did not have any. Indeed, the UN weapons inspectors were casting serious doubts on the claims that he did. There was f all evidence Saddam still had WMDs and even less that he wanted a conflict. North Korea is another story.

BoatMad

SeanW wrote: »

Saddam could not have given up his WMD because he did not have any. Indeed, the UN weapons inspectors were casting serious doubts on the claims that he did. There was f all evidence Saddam still had WMDs and even less that he wanted a conflict. North Korea is another story.

I was merely commenting on the previous posters justification ,

having nukes is not a reason to bomb anyone, if so we should target Israel !!!

Infini

BoatMad wrote: »

well that reads like " weapons of mass destruction - lets get them boys "

I see the softening up processes are well underway !

surely the arguments at this stage after Iraq could be a little more subtle !!

To be fair though Iraq was a red herring and actually damaged the US's credibility. Ironically had they just left it be Saddam would have prolly been toppled in the Arab Spring instead.

Problem this time is NK is the real deal and a real threat. They actually do have WMD and have actually detonated nukes. They only weren't taken out sooner because they had Seoul and a major economic hub and its people hostage with artillery.

This is a giant game of chicken and Kim is a truck while Trump is a freight train. The train would be damaged sure but the truck would be obliterated completely. The question here really is will NK realize where the not to be crossed is before they actually cross it.

Fully developing actual nuked armed ICBM's that could hit washington would probably be what would cause the US to strike first. If NK actually stops at where they are now and dial down the rhetoric they'll be able to get away with it but if they actually attack US forces in international territory it would be like lighting the bonfire.

4068ac1elhodqr

BoatMad wrote: »

having nukes is not a reason to bomb anyone, if so we should target Israel !!!

Isn't it? It depends on the behaviour of those that own such destructive technology. With great power comes great responsibility, and nk are far from responsible.

Fair enough Isr really isn't the best example, but they don't make videos of simulated attacks and broadcast on national TV for entertainment one would assume. They don't offer to 'sink' other counties.

What if nk sell their know-how to Sudan or Yemen, would that be acceptable?

BoatMad

Evie Big Troop wrote: »

Isn't it? It depends on the behaviour of those that own such destructive technology. With great power comes great responsibility, and nk are far from responsible.

Fair enough Isr really isn't the best example, but they don't make videos of simulated attacks and broadcast on national TV for entertainment one would assume. They don't offer to 'sink' other counties.

What if nk sell their know-how to Sudan or Yemen, would that be acceptable?

Talking loudly is not a justification for invasion, if and when NK actually takes a military action then a " response " is necessary
Imagine if NK had issues a statement saying they were going to " totally destroy " the US ......

Nor, it must be remembered, is the US appointed by God to be a global, judge, jury and executioner

BoatMad

Problem this time is NK is the real deal and a real threat. They actually do have WMD and have actually detonated nukes. They only weren't taken out sooner because they had Seoul and a major economic hub and its people hostage with artillery.

loads of countries " have nukes " and have " detonated" them

hey only weren't taken out sooner because they had Seoul and a major economic hub and its people hostage with artillery.

no , its the position of China that has largely shielded NK.

This is a giant game of chicken and Kim is a truck while Trump is a freight train. The train would be damaged sure but the truck would be obliterated completely. The question here really is will NK realize where the not to be crossed is before they actually cross it.

Unfortunately destroying a country bares no relation to a train hitting a truck, its a messy complicated long drawn out process and leaves the victor wondering why he started this in the first place !!!

Fully developing actual nuked armed ICBM's that could hit washington would probably be what would cause the US to strike first. If NK actually stops at where they are now and dial down the rhetoric they'll be able to get away with it but if they actually attack US forces in international territory it would be like lighting the bonfire.

Merely having a weapon that can " in theory " hit washington isnt justification for war

they actually attack US forces in international territory

entirely different , thats an act of war, but this hasn't happened

BorneTobyWilde

How do they know the destination of those rockets that flew over Japan? Surely when fired they knew they were approaching Japan and they did nothing? So if he wants he can fire one targetted at Japan knowing it will make it through.
He can nuke Japan at will, and only when it hit will someone react. Too late at that point.

4068ac1elhodqr

BoatMad wrote: »

Talking loudly is not a justification for invasion, if and when NK actually takes a military action then a " response " is necessary
Imagine if NK had issues a statement saying they were going to " totally destroy " the US ......

Nor, it must be remembered, is the US appointed by God to be a global, judge, jury and executioner

Shouting loudly at multiple countries whilst waving a very big stick could perhaps deserve a cautious response. When the UN repeatedly asks a country to stop and disdain it usually means they're doing something very wrong.

It would also not be an invasion, but simply removal of threat. Nk have already said along the lines of 'totally destroy' multiple countries including us, sk, Japan. They also alluded to EMP capability in a recent statement.

Last point, perhaps so but they along with the UN might the best of a bad bunch, ideally Tibet should rule the world, but this is somehow not possible.

BoatMad

He can nuke Japan at will, and only when it hit will someone react. Too late at that point.

unfortunately. unless you condone world dictatorship, and a kind of " thought crime " approach to this, you have to accept that until it engages in a clearly destructive act, you cannot condone action against a sovereign nation.

Thats the price we pay for being reasonable and its one we have to pay

BoatMad

When the UN repeatedly asks a country to stop and disdain it usually means they're doing something very wrong.

unless you have a UN veto , because without it the US would have equally been censured many times

It would also not be an invasion, but simply removal of threat.

it would lead to an invasion, Any action against NK, would restart the Korean war and draw in ground troops to support SK, ( and protect Seoul ) , it cant be done in any " surgical strike " nonsense

any " removal off treat " would have to be on such a scale, that it would be effective genocide

TotalReality

BoatMad wrote: »

unless you have a UN veto , because without it the US would have equally been censured many times



it would lead to an invasion, Any action against NK, would restart the Korean war and draw in ground troops to support SK, ( and protect Seoul ) , it cant be done in any " surgical strike " nonsense

any " removal off treat " would have to be on such a scale, that it would be effective genocide

You seem to know it all.
What do you think will happen?

4068ac1elhodqr

BoatMad wrote: »

"removal off treat " would have to be on such a scale, that it would be effective genocide

And your solution to the situation is?

Nettle Soup

A war on twitter. That is all this is. It is already tapering off.

Trump actually saved Twitter from going bankrupt.

Take a knee Trump you dope. You are disrespecting the American flag on a daily basis.

BoatMad

TotalReality wrote: »

You seem to know it all.
What do you think will happen?

China will intervene to quieten Pyongyang, Trumps rhetoric is aimed at that. ( to get china off the fence )

China has way to much to loose compared to its position in the world during the Korean war

I see it like this

Beijing " get me Kim on the line "
Kim" " yes "
Beijing: " OK OK , you've had your fun, now its pissing us off, like seriously pissing us off"
kim:" I dont really care"
Beijing " oh thats ok, well we will withdraw food, technology finance , etc etc ", "I'm sure it will be fine " , oh and perhaps a few 100,000 Chineese army will wander around your borders "
Kim " oh but you're our friends "
Beijing " not for much longer , think very carefully "

,,,,,,,,