US considering Preemptive Strike against North Korea.

jackboy

jackboy wrote: »

NK haven't been at war for 50 years. They have a massive pathetic army. The US would destroy them in 3 days. There would just be low level resistance after that.

Massive; yes, pathetic; maybe
But that pathetic army would defend the the dear leader with their lives, they've had a lifetime of indoctrination to ensure total dedication to the job in hand.
Remember the Japanese in WWII

jackboy

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Massive; yes, pathetic; maybe
But that pathetic army would defend the the dear leader with their lives, they've had a lifetime of indoctrination to ensure total dedication to the job in hand.
Remember the Japanese in WWII

I don't think they would. The Japanese easily got annihilated in WW2 by the US. It took a while to get the job done because the Japs were spread out over a massive geographic area. Also, a lot of the dirty work done by soldiers in WW2 has been replaced by technology.

Skylinehead

jackboy wrote: »

I don't think they would. The Japanese easily got annihilated in WW2 by the US. It took a while to get the job done because the Japs were spread out over a massive geographic area. Also, a lot of the dirty work done by soldiers in WW2 has been replaced by technology.

You and I have different definitions of "easy" it seems. The Pacific war was brutal.

Ronaldinho

jackboy wrote: »

NK haven't been at war for 50 years. They have a massive pathetic army. The US would destroy them in 3 days. There would just be low level resistance after that.

They are reputed to have a very formidable force of special ops units.

jackboy

Skylinehead wrote: »

You and I have different definitions of "easy" it seems. The Pacific war was brutal.

It was brutal but the Japs got destroyed in every encounter after Midway. They had no chance of significant victory in any engagement. Technology used with full commitment beats a large fanatical army every time.

TerrorFirmer

Skylinehead wrote: »

You and I have different definitions of "easy" it seems. The Pacific war was brutal.

The Japanese Navy and Airforce during WW2 was a much, much closer match to the respective US counter-parts than NK is today.

Their land forces were overwhelmingly inferior but it was a conflict decided by air and sea power.

Of course, they were beaten in 1942, just took until 1945 to wear them down but the war was won 3 years before that.

NK wouldn't have the vaguest hope in any sort of military conflict regardless of what branch of the armed forces were involved.

Gatling

It seems the south Korean president had called an urgent meeting with america so they can ask for more THAADs missles systems to be brought in and deployed , considering they were initially against the system originally ,
Wonder how the Chinese will react to south Korea

The_Valeyard

jackboy wrote: »

It was brutal but the Japs got destroyed in every encounter after Midway. They had no chance of significant victory in any engagement. Technology used with full commitment beats a large fanatical army every time.

I agree with your first point, although invading mainland Japan would have been bloodbath. Allies still would have won, but at a huge cost.

I'd disagree about techonology though. Iraq and Afghanistan have proved that tech does not guarantee victory. I'd also add that even with massive commitment with boots on the ground does not guarantee victory such as Vietnam.

jackboy

The_Valeyard wrote: »

I agree with your first point, although invading mainland Japan would have been bloodbath. Allies still would have won, but at a huge cost.

I'd disagree about techonology though. Iraq and Afghanistan have proved that tech does not guarantee victory. I'd also add that even with massive commitment with boots on the ground does not guarantee victory such as Vietnam.

The US won with ease in Iraq and Afghanistan. They could have quickly destroyed the insurgencies if committed. Look at how ISIS are currently being destroyed by mediocre armies. Vietnam could also have been easily won with a committed effort.

The_Valeyard

jackboy wrote: »

The US won with ease in Iraq and Afghanistan[Jackjoy]

Ah right, thats why the fighting is still in the news a decade or more later.

jackboy wrote: »

ietnam could also have been easily won with a committed effort.

A committed effort?

Nearly 500,000 troops, more bombs dropped than all of WW2, air, land, sea, campaign, action in Camobdia, My Lai massacres, etc, etc

think thats a pretty committed effort.

Gatling

The_Valeyard wrote: »

jackboy wrote: »

The US won with ease in Iraq and Afghanistan[Jackjoy]

Ah right, thats why the fighting is still in the news a decade or more later.




A committed effort?

Nearly 500,000 troops, more bombs dropped than all of WW2, air, land, sea, campaign, action in Camobdia, My Lai massacres, etc, etc

think thats a pretty committed effort.

Problem with Vietnam was repeatedly changing strategies and commanders ,
If they pushed out after the Tiet offensive they would have finished the job the vc and nva were completely depleted after it , america dropped the ball and and eventually withdrew ,
There best units of Green berets and newly formed seals were having great success in fighting on the ground and cutting off supply lines ,

But that's a whole different thread ,

Elmer Blooker

jackboy wrote: »

The US won with ease in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yes, and an obedient, subservient and docile media covering up the bombing of civilians in Mosul helped matters too.

Gatling

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Yes, and an obedient, subservient and docile media covering up the bombing of civilians in Mosul helped matters too.

Lol

archer22

America's world empire is slipping away at a rapid pace.
All it's opponents are getting stronger and stronger while it is getting weaker and weaker.
All that's interesting now is whether it will accept the new reality and fade away quietly, like the British empire, or cast the dice and try its luck in a world conflict it probably won't survive.
One thing is certain America's policy of creating chaos to profit from across the globe won't be going on for much longer.

TerrorFirmer

archer22 wrote: »

America's world empire is slipping away at a rapid pace.
All it's opponents are getting stronger and stronger while it is getting weaker and weaker.
All that's interesting now is whether it will accept the new reality and fade away quietly, like the British empire, or cast the dice and try its luck in a world conflict it probably won't survive.
One thing is certain America's policy of creating chaos to profit from across the globe won't be going on for much longer.

In this instance 'weaker and weaker' and 'stronger and stronger' makes for a good sound piece does not really infer much at all.

I'm no fan of US foreign policy but it's military capability on a modern battlefield eclipses even it's biggest rivals combined.

A committed effort?

Nearly 500,000 troops, more bombs dropped than all of WW2, air, land, sea, campaign, action in Camobdia, My Lai massacres, etc, etc

think thats a pretty committed effort.

They came very close but the real turning point came at the same time as public support fell off a cliff and it became a deeply, deeply unpopular war at home, whatever year the Tet Offensive was.

Ah right, thats why the fighting is still in the news a decade or more later.

In conventional warfare the US rolled over the entire Iraqi armed forces with minimal casualties, even though on paper the Iraqi military was....reasonable by regional standards, for want of a better term.

And then, what happened with ISIS as well - a rebel group of a few thousand routing what was on paper, a brand new and well equipped Iraqi army.

Yes insurgency is a problem but that is fundamentally a domestic matter for the Iraqi and Afghan Governments to resolve, supported by the US.

But the point was about conventional militaries, paper figures don't really mean much.

North Korea has a huge, but hopelessly outdated and antiquated military. No-one would deny casulties would be inevitable but overall, the idea that NK could mount any sort of effective defense in a conventional military sense is nonsense.

Posing a threat to the US military is not synonymous with being on any sort of remote even footing - that goes for any of the US supposed rivals, be it China or Russia or whoever.

Gatling

archer22 wrote: »

America's world empire is slipping away at a rapid pace.
All it's opponents are getting stronger and stronger while it is getting weaker and weaker.
All that's interesting now is whether it will accept the new reality and fade away quietly, like the British empire, or cast the dice and try its luck in a world conflict it probably won't survive.
One thing is certain America's policy of creating chaos to profit from across the globe won't be going on for much longer.

Could be a lot worse look at russia gone from superpower to local regional power with nothing really to show ,
Bypassed in every aspect by weaker countries ,

Must bring a tear to the eye

InTheTrees

archer22 wrote:

All that's interesting now is whether it will accept the new reality and fade away quietly, like the British empire, or cast the dice and try its luck in a world conflict it probably won't survive.

I don't think the British Empire faded away quietly.

seiphil

jackboy wrote: »

NK haven't been at war for 50 years. They have a massive pathetic army. The US would destroy them in 3 days. There would just be low level resistance after that.

Put down your American kool aid there for a minute will you. For 50 years they have been building their army, underground bases, tunnels, weapons, tanks etc. They have been building for a conflict for 50 years.

America are not very good at war. It may seem like it from the outside but they have failed again and again. Iraq was a mess, Afghanistan was a mess, Libya, Syria and so on and on. NK Have more troops, better weaponry and tougher terrain than any of those opponents. If this wasn't the case they would have been invaded long ago. NK are making a complete show of the US, SK and Japan at the moment.

helimachoptor

seiphil wrote: »

Put down your American kool aid there for a minute will you. For 50 years they have been building their army, underground bases, tunnels, weapons, tanks etc. They have been building for a conflict for 50 years.

America are not very good at war. It may seem like it from the outside but they have failed again and again. Iraq was a mess, Afghanistan was a mess, Libya, Syria and so on and on. NK Have more troops, better weaponry and tougher terrain than any of those opponents. If this wasn't the case they would have been invaded long ago. NK are making a complete show of the US, SK and Japan at the moment.

America didnt fail at war, War was won pretty quickly. Trying to be peacekeepers, installing governments etc is what they failed at

jackboy

seiphil wrote: »

Put down your American kool aid there for a minute will you. For 50 years they have been building their army, underground bases, tunnels, weapons, tanks etc. They have been building for a conflict for 50 years.

What tanks are they building? Hiding in tunnels will not win a war, only delay inevitable defeat. As for building their army, they would struggle to put boots on all their soldiers, let alone arm them properly. They will fold hard and fast in a war.

seiphil

helimachoptor wrote: »

America didnt fail at war, War was won pretty quickly. Trying to be peacekeepers, installing governments etc is what they failed at

The Taliban are coming back to strength in Afghanistan so thats hardly a victory. Iraq war lasted 8 years. Thats hardly quick. And Libya is a complete cluster ****.

War isn't just shock and awe and over when they kill dear leader.

seiphil

seiphil wrote: »

War isn't just shock and awe and over when they kill dear leader.

It depends on how the people of NK react when they see what the rest of the world looks like, most likely they'll embrace the new found freedoms and migrate south.

SK had better be ready with the chequebook to rebuild the country to avoid unrest caused by inequality.

seiphil

Deleted User wrote: »

It depends on how the people of NK react when they see what the rest of the world looks like, most likely they'll embrace the new found freedoms and migrate south.

SK had better be ready with the chequebook to rebuild the country to avoid unrest caused by inequality.

Doubt that would happen. But they would be far more likely to head north to China if anywhere.

Gatling

seiphil wrote: »

The Taliban are coming back to strength in Afghanistan

Currently been supported by the russians ,

The wiped the floor with one of the biggest militaries not once but twice with minimum losses ,in Iraq,
The problem with Iraq it quickly turned into a sectarian civil war involving various tribal alliances , religious alliances and terrorists with a lot of support coming from Iran for anyone that was anti america ,
They won the wars but struggled with building a nation that should be unified ,
They beat the Taliban too but again they were supplied and trained by Pakistan who claimed by be a US allie so again not so simple to say america lost the war when they didn't ,

North Korea isn't built for war despite the claims there still stuck in the 1950s for most part especially as military force ,
Lots of long open and exposed roads and highways and railways ,
Doesn't make for great war fighting especially when you don't have any real airpower to support mass movement of armoured vehicles and supplies ,
There actually very vaunerable for the most part underground bases are no good when you have massive ordanince capable of hitting and destroying targets underground along with thermobaric weapons capable of killing large numbers of soldiers in tunnels without having to send troops in ,
Add the fact america aircraft and satallites have flown recon flights for 50+ years it's safe to say they know where and what exactly to hit

Here we go

Amarica is held back by public opinion if it was out right win at all cost there still the most powetful country in the world by a country mile but they have to hold back

Infini

seiphil wrote: »

Put down your American kool aid there for a minute will you. For 50 years they have been building their army, underground bases, tunnels, weapons, tanks etc. They have been building for a conflict for 50 years.

America are not very good at war. It may seem like it from the outside but they have failed again and again. Iraq was a mess, Afghanistan was a mess, Libya, Syria and so on and on. NK Have more troops, better weaponry and tougher terrain than any of those opponents. If this wasn't the case they would have been invaded long ago. NK are making a complete show of the US, SK and Japan at the moment.

That being said MOST of their army is a paper army. Theres no doubt they have some good troops but in a conventional fight the US and SK forces would pulverise them quickly. Many of their troops are lacking basic gear and using outdated weaponry. Whats holding the US forces is how they got artillery in range of Seoul and other major population centers. That civilians would be the ones getting hit first is the ONLY reason that Military action hasnt been used against this nutter state. Their artillery wouldnt last long jet fighters would easily take them out but the amount of damage they could do before being taken out is the issue.

The other issue is that NK have enough brainwashed people at their disposal to make messier Biochemical attacks against the regular population and thats not taking into the fact the Nuclear factor. The real problem with NK persisting with its current path is like any idiot with power sooner or later they become a bigger threat because they get cocky and will push more and more. So far its all being just sanctions. What will ultimately change is when instead of sanctions Kim Fatty the 3rd does something that forces an actual military strike against him. A nuke test is what might do this which is why they keep going with the missile tests.

As it stands this thing IS gonna light up sooner or later. I woudnt be suprised if China has some hidden plan ready to steamroll into NK in the event theyre actually stupid enough to use a Nuke. We all know the minute they fire one of those things off its nearly guaranteed the US will hit back with a major nuclear counterstrike against all their major strongholds. God help everyone there if that happens.

The way things are going diplomatic means I feel wont work because NK has a track record and history of not keeping to its word after agreeing to things. Whats different this time is the way things are going sooner or later its not sanctions that will be used but military force as eventually it gets to the point that the threat passed what some could call the "Godzilla threshold" where not taking action is actually worse than just doing so.

This is a 50+ year old problem that should have been solved and its not the US that created this but Russia and China too. Its a pity that its our generation thats gonna be forced to deal with a problem our predecessors created.

helimachoptor

seiphil wrote: »

The Taliban are coming back to strength in Afghanistan so thats hardly a victory. Iraq war lasted 8 years. Thats hardly quick. And Libya is a complete cluster ****.

War isn't just shock and awe and over when they kill dear leader.

America defeated the taliban militarily.
Yes they are resurgent but if America wanted it could go back in again but without actual leadership from Kabul the taliban will be ever present in one form or another.

Regarding Iraq Obama declared an end to combat operations but in reality the aim was to toppled Saddam and wipeout the Iraqi army which was done quickly and pretty much effortlessly.

From a military perspective America would kick ass with anyone, occupying any country is going to make your armed services look ****.

archer22

America's ability to project military power around the globe is dependent on its Carrier fleets.
But these Carriers are also its Achilles heel...Anti Ship Missile technology has now reached awesome levels compared to even a decade ago.

I certainly would not like to be on an American carrier when missiles like the Chinese DF-21D are screaming in at Mach 10.

Nor would I have much confidence that anything is going to shoot down such a weapon travelling at that speed except by sheer luck...and that luck won't hold especially when you can be sure they won't be arriving one at a time but in scores.

Gatling

archer22 wrote: »

America's ability to project military power around the globe is dependent on its Carrier fleets.
But these Carriers are also its Achilles heel...Anti Ship Missile technology has now reached awesome levels compared to even a decade ago.
.

Not really more blind speculation still won't stop america striking where ,when and who ever they like

Aristotle145

Gatling wrote: »

Could be a lot worse look at russia gone from superpower to local regional power with nothing really to show ,
Bypassed in every aspect by weaker countries ,

Must bring a tear to the eye

I wouldnt say Russia is any less powerful than it used to be under the old soviet union.
They have still a powerful military and equipment and the economy is weakened,but only because of sanctions.