US considering Preemptive Strike against North Korea.

BoatMad

jackboy wrote: »

Marines wouldn't be involved. Air force and navy would do the job. No need to invade. 90% of the job would be done in three days. All that would be left after that would be the runners and hinders.

True, but all of Korea would be so rendered ,

Unless Nuclear was deployed , the US airforce hasn't the ability to disrupt NK in three days , in fact Syria shows that air power can tip the balance , but it cant subdue anything for any length of time ,

Assad runway that was hit was flying planes within three hours for example

US navy hasn't the ability to interdict a whole country , again would require nuclear option

US is not going to use nuclear outside of a NK actual first nuclear strike and Kim is nuts but not that nuts

any major conflict in NK will involve Seoul being flattened and and invasion of SK , that would require loads of US boots on the ground

jackboy

BoatMad wrote: »

True, but all of Korea would be so rendered ,

Unless Nuclear was deployed , the US airforce hasn't the ability to disrupt NK in three days , in fact Syria shows that air power can tip the balance , but it cant subdue anything for any length of time ,

Assad runway that was hit was flying planes within three hours for example

US navy hasn't the ability to interdict a whole country , again would require nuclear option

US is not going to use nuclear outside of a NK actual first nuclear strike and Kim is nuts but not that nuts

any major conflict in NK will involve Seoul being flattened and and invasion of SK , that would require loads of US boots on the ground

The war in Syria involves winning territory. That takes soldiers. A war in NK would involve destruction of technology only. The US air force and navy are very good at that.

bilston

Gatling wrote: »

Deterrent from what exactly ,spending 60+ years Threatening your neighbors isn't exactly while playing the victim and saying you need nukes as a deterrent is stupid ,
NK should be stopped getting nukes at all costs

All costs? Is it worth a possible nuclear war to stop them from getting nukes (which they already have).

The horse has bolted. Action should have been taken 10 years ago.

BoatMad

jackboy wrote: »

The war in Syria involves winning territory. That takes soldiers. A war in NK would involve destruction of technology only. The US air force and navy are very good at that.

Sorry , NK still has a huge army , you think Kim would then sit on his hands

Seoul gets flattened , SK gets invaded

removing tech doesn't stop that , you need boots to stop your frenemies firing bullets at your friends, thats why you send in the boots

jackboy

BoatMad wrote: »

Sorry , NK still has a huge army , you think Kim would then sit on his hands

Seoul gets flattened , SK gets invaded

removing tech doesn't stop that , you need boots to stop your frenemies firing bullets at your friends, thats why you send in the boots

How would NK invade the south with no air force, navy or tanks? There would be a mountain of NK bodies on the border if they tried to invade.

BoatMad

jackboy wrote: »

How would NK invade the south with no air force, navy or tanks? There would be a mountain of NK bodies on the border if they tried to invade.

just like the Syrian rebels nearly over came Assads army or ISIS captured whole swathes etc

US isnt going to destroy personal weapons , small and medium arms , light artillery etc , not without carpet bombing the whole country, in fact US airstrikes had limited effects against tanks that are dug in , especially in jungle and mountainous terrain ( as opposed to sitting ducks in a desert )

it didnt do it in Iran, Afghanistan , Syria , the Korean , war, the Vietnam war, etc etc etc

the US can disable limited military capability , often surprisingly limited, from the air, equally NK has far better air defence then most of the recent US engagements

Any significant military action against NK would require 100,000s of US troops in SK

NGTH

This isn't my analysis , this is the analysis of any military commentator you listen to . Trump cant act in any way against NK , ( even assuming China approved of it) without engulfing korea in an all out war. such a war would require ground intervention by the US

Gatling

BoatMad wrote: »

Sorry , NK still has a huge army , you think Kim would then sit on his hands

Seoul gets flattened , SK gets invaded

South Korea wouldn't get Invaded the border Defences are set up for Sieges in the short and long term ,
NK would have to commit hundreds of thousands of men and vehicles and supplies to maintain a seige without any aircover , meanwhile south Korea ,the US and its allies can reign down artillery , bombers and gunships against anything that moves 24/7 and they only get one chance to actually try to invade ,

You also have to realise america has flown reconnaissance flights over every inch over the last 6 decades ,
the moment any major movement is detected it's going to stop pretty swift

fxotoole

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

We are in situation now Trump could go to war with North Korea at anytime.

You have been saying this for weeks now, and yet it hasn't happened. You've lost all credibility at this stage.

Cheerful Spring

fxotoole wrote: »

You have been saying this for weeks now, and yet it hasn't happened. You've lost all credibility at this stage.

What are you even saying, credibility? Are you just on here to annoy? Trump is the president. His ruled out diplomatic ways to solve this, all is left is war. It going to happen fairly soon. There was diplomatic negotiations weeks ago, there was some hope then.

Cheerful Spring

bilston wrote: »

If the US sits down and thinks about it for a moment they will realise they do not need to solve this militarily. North Korea will never strike first, they know if they do they will cease to exist in minutes. Sure no one wants North Korea to have a nuclear capability, but better that and there being no conflict than there being a conflict in which at least hundreds of thousands will be killed, possibly millions, and not to mention a significantly damaged global economy.

Who said North Korea is going to attack first. It amazes me people on here just blindly dismiss the words of the President of the United States. Trump is all in now for war. I think it only a matter of time, when it kicks off.

McMurphy

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Who said North Korea is going to attack first. It amazes me people on here just blindly dismiss the words of the President of the United States. Trump is all in now for war. I think it only a matter of time, when it kicks off.

When the president of the U.S.A. is a bumbling buffoon.....

Cheerful Spring

Rick Shaw wrote: »

When the president of the U.S.A. is a bumbling buffoon.....

This buffoon is the guy in charge of US armed forces. If he decides to have a war there is not a lot can be done to stop him.

jimmycrackcorm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Who said North Korea is going to attack first. It amazes me people on here just blindly dismiss the words of the President of the United States. Trump is all in now for war. I think it only a matter of time, when it kicks off.

My bet is on a US preemptive nuclear tactical strike on NK nuclear facilities. They will demand immediate surrender and Kims head on a platter or unleash nuclear devastation.

There will be no large-scale boots on the ground dragging it out. Once you're directly fighting a nuclear-armed opponent you can't risk them firing on you.

Trump would get away with it too telling the US public that they don't want to wait for another Pearl Harbour. The nuclear option isn't as devastating as it was once feared when you consider what Nagasaki and Hiroshima are like now, let alone atomically challenged areas such as Fukushima and Chernobyl.

I'd say Trump is seriously thinking only he has the balls to pull it off. NK is not Russia or China, so no real fear of a mass retaliation, but they'll get to the stage of either perfecting and sneakily transporting a bomb into a U.S. city or sell one to ISIS or the like.

McMurphy

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

This buffoon is the guy in charge of US armed forces. If he decides to have a war there is not a lot can be done to stop him.

There is actually.




He needs the approval of Congress.

Sierra Oscar

There's some interesting developments coming out of Washington tonight - Chief of Staff of the US Army Mark Milley has indicated that military action will not be taken without the approval of Congress. It seems representatives are working behind the scenes to secure a vote before any military action is authorised, thus preventing Trump from taking any damaging or extreme unilateral action.

I find it somewhat worrying though as Trump might feel the need to flex his muscles to assert his control over the military.

BoatMad

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

My bet is on a US preemptive nuclear tactical strike on NK nuclear facilities. They will demand immediate surrender and Kims head on a platter or unleash nuclear devastation.

There will be no large-scale boots on the ground dragging it out. Once you're directly fighting a nuclear-armed opponent you can't risk them firing on you.

Trump would get away with it too telling the US public that they don't want to wait for another Pearl Harbour. The nuclear option isn't as devastating as it was once feared when you consider what Nagasaki and Hiroshima are like now, let alone atomically challenged areas such as Fukushima and Chernobyl.

I'd say Trump is seriously thinking only he has the balls to pull it off. NK is not Russia or China, so no real fear of a mass retaliation, but they'll get to the stage of either perfecting and sneakily transporting a bomb into a U.S. city or sell one to ISIS or the like.

no way US will initiate a nuclear first strike. It would instantly become a pariah state

North Korea would then spend the rest of its waking life , seeking retribution

NGTH

there will be no US military response, Trump is a blow hard , there will be no wall, no infrastructure budget, no healthcare reform,

Trump wont deliver anything , including an NK military action

as I said a blowhard

monty_python

https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2017/1010/911221-north-korean-hackers-steal-souths-war-plans/

flaneur

The problem is that the way things work in the US they allow the president an incredible amount of power on that one issue.
The system was designed to allow for a rapid response to an attack during the Cold War, but it has effectively left Trump with the red button.

The way it works at present the president simply phones a mid ranking military staff member in a control centre and they confirm codes and launch.

There's no other political oversight and those taking the commands are basically trained to just do so unquestioningly. It does not go in at a high level strategic command area or the military. It's a direct command to mid ranking people who can't really argue back.

All the president needs is to see that the US is being "attacked" and that's wide open to interpretation.

He can't get the wall, he can't get the massive spending and tax changes without a lengthy political process but he can launch a nuclear attack almost at a whim...

Have a read of this Congressional Research Service published briefing note on how it works.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/IF10521.pdf

"Another scenario could see the United States choose to use nuclear weapons prior to a nuclear attack against the United States or its allies, on a time line that did not reflect an imminent nuclear attack against the United States. The United States has never declared a “no first use” policy. Nevertheless, recently, some Members of Congress and analysts outside government have questioned whether the Commander-in-Chief should have the sole authority to launch a nuclear attack in all circumstances. They agree that the President would not have the time to consult with Congress or seek approval from other officials if the United States were under attack with nuclear weapons. But, in an environment where the threat of a massive nuclear attack from an adversary like Russia is greatly diminished relative to the Cold War, they argue that the President could take the time to consult with Congress before launching nuclear weapons in less extreme circumstances."

This is the bit that worries me...
He can make a lot of decisions entirely without checks and balances.

Hande hoche!

monty_python wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2017/1010/911221-north-korean-hackers-steal-souths-war-plans/

Saw that earlier. Seemingly the hacking took place last September. Columbas day passed relatively quietly as regards North Korea.

Cheerful Spring

So far the North Koreans are not giving Trump the excuse to start a war. Maybe Kim is realizing Trump is mad enough to attack his country and had to ease off. Could be wrong though and he will fire another missile this week?

flaneur

It’s impossible to know really how much of NK rhetoric is just that.
Trump is actually in a many ways less predictable.

The big question is would the US military blindly follow a command ?

Cheerful Spring

Rick Shaw wrote: »

There is actually.




He needs the approval of Congress.

Trump attacked a Syrian air base with no congressional approval. He can start a war if he thinks it's the right thing to do protect America. There is no law in place to stop him.

flaneur

Read through the document I posted a link to above. He doesn’t need any approval from anyone, as long as he reasonably considers something a threat to the US and/or its allies.

He can’t declare a war without congressional approval but he can launch a nuclear strike.

The whole thing goes back to the idea that they needed to be able to instantly respond to a Soviet launch and that because both sides knew that was the case, neither would ever launch anything - mutually assured destruction (MAD) philosophy that kept the peace for decades.

It shortcuts all the checks and balances and puts the power in one person’s hands

Effectively the only checks are that the secretary of defense verifies the legality of the order, but very few things would make it illegal.

cnocbui

BoatMad wrote: »

no way US will initiate a nuclear first strike. It would instantly become a pariah state

North Korea would then spend the rest of its waking life , seeking retribution

NGTH

there will be no US military response, Trump is a blow hard , there will be no wall, no infrastructure budget, no healthcare reform,

Trump wont deliver anything , including an NK military action

as I said a blowhard

Maggie Thatcher was accused by some of entering into the Falklands war as a means of improving her popularity.

I think Trump may well see a war with North Korea as being something that might boost his. As you pointed out, nothing else he tries is likely to do that.

flaneur

Yeah he probably has his eye on a legacy as a “war president”

MadYaker

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Trump attacked a Syrian air base with no congressional approval. He can start a war if he thinks it's the right thing to do protect America. There is no law in place to stop him.

Wrong. He can't do anything without the approval of congress. Syria is totally different because they were already involved in a conflict there. It isn't Trump's call to make. Japan and South Korea are very important allies of the US, Trump can't and won't do anything without their approval also, which he won't get. Especially not from the South Koreans. Not to mention China, an ally of North Korea, who also have to be involved in any military action.

Trump likes to talk crap on twitter because inside his head he's actually a spoilt 14 year old. Don't pay any attention to it. If you want to know what's really going on listen to press releases from the military or any of the generals involved in white house business. The only way a war can happen is if Kim starts it by attacking the USA or their allies. Which he isn't going to do because he doesn't want him and his family to be slaughtered like cattle.

flaneur wrote: »

Yeah he probably has his eye on a legacy as a “war president”

Yeah because that did wonders for Bush's legacy..... not. Not that it would make much of a difference. Trumps legacy will reflect the fact that he is the worst president in the history of the USA. Starting a war will only make it worse. Especially when he ran on a platform of not getting involved in foreign conflicts, reducing America's international military presence, and slammed Hillary for being a war mongerer.

I honestly don't see how so many people on this thread are being convinced that ''omg omg war is coming, Trumps gonna start a war to make himself popular!!!1!''

Since when has sending sons / brothers / fathers half the way around the world to die actually been a popular idea among the voting public in the US???

RustyNut

Gatling wrote: »

Deterrent from what exactly ,spending 60+ years Threatening your neighbors isn't exactly while playing the victim and saying you need nukes as a deterrent is stupid ,
NK should be stopped getting nukes at all costs

And in the same 60 years the yanks have gone around the world invading sovereign countries, either directly or using proxies, slaughtering innocent men women and children.

It's not Kim fatty that's the big threat to world peace.

I think it's highly unlikely Trump would every go to war in order to gain some popularity because he knows that he'll be ridiculed one way or another, if he goes to war it will be only Trump's fault, if NK launch some form of attack on U.S soil Trump will be ridiculed for not stopping it and if he goes to war after an attack it will be the ( poor NK people being killed ) Everything he says and does he will be ridiculed the hatred of him is so powerful and the Media scum just won't let up.

Nettle Soup

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Current President of the United States is Donald Trump. He has said there is only a military option left to deal with them. He is no longer interested solving it diplomatically. We are in situation now Trump could go to war with North Korea at anytime.

You just want to keep your thread going! :D:D

Nettle Soup

cnocbui wrote: »

Maggie Thatcher was accused by some of entering into the Falklands war as a means of improving her popularity.

I think Trump may well see a war with North Korea as being something that might boost his. As you pointed out, nothing else he tries is likely to do that.

Huh????

Argentina invaded the Falklands!
What else could she do??