North Korea News

[SuburbanFarmer]

Here's our adversary, boys.

Why is fat boy personally showing his guys how to hold a pistol?

I love it..

[TheOneX]

You seem to be confusing Korea and Vietnam, in the Korean War, Nixon was only Vice President, the President's were Truman and Eisenhower, but in both cases, Korea and then Vietnam, America went in overconfident and found out the hard way, Korea resulting in a stalemate, Vietnam resulting in fleeing the field, yet both were assumed to be a cake walk going in.

The stalemate wasn't with North Korea, the stalemate was with China and Russia. Without China entering the war on North Korea's side North Korea does not exist today in any form. At the time China entered the war North Korea had all but lost the war.

[Smitty-48]

You seem to be confusing Korea and Vietnam, in the Korean War, Nixon was only Vice President, the President's were Truman and Eisenhower, but in both cases, Korea and then Vietnam, America went in overconfident and found out the hard way, Korea resulting in a stalemate, Vietnam resulting in fleeing the field, yet both were assumed to be a cake walk going in.

The stalemate wasn't with North Korea, the stalemate was with China and Russia. Without China entering the war on North Korea's side North Korea does not exist today in any form. At the time China entered the war North Korea had all but lost the war.

The North Koreans now are far more capable than the North Koreans then, the North Korean army in 1950 is not what you would be facing, the North Koreans went on to build a serious army after the Korean War, I wouldn't underestimate the North Koreans, although of course you will, as military overconfidence is an American pathology, hubris, ever your undoing.

If you're going into North Korea to topple the regime, it's going to be asymetrical, and in case you haven't noticed, America sucks at asymetrical, to wit, they're not likely to come out and "fight fair", they're going to hunker down and play the spoilers, and the "regime dead enders" always have a way of spoiling America's "Mission Accomplished" moments.

It's not a question of having to overrun American forces and then march on Washington DC, every adversary knows, that all they have to do, is spoil the ticker tape parade, by hunkering down and dragging it out, inflicting casualties all the way, until the American public has had enough, and then just orders Washington to throw the towel in and withdraw, suing for cold peace over prolonged and flagged draped hot war.

[The Conservative]

Patton was killed in a vehicle accident in World War Two, the commanders in Korea were MacArthur and then Ridgeway, but it was MacArthur who went in overconfident, and then ended up being driven out of there with his tail between his legs.

Oy, I'm batting a thousand today... my brain has been dealing with learning Ruby, I swear it's but my brain into a blender and makes crap come out after a few hours of studying...yeah, you were right about the Vietnam and not Korea...

[Smitty-48]

Thing is, I'm not even saying that you would "lose" per se, certainly, America has enough raw power to pound the North Korean regime out of Pyongyang and effectively depose them in the city, but that doesn't mean they couldn't render it a pyrric victory, where it turned into a brutal slog that went on and on, with far more attrition than Americans were expecting, and then with unintended consequences which created a bigger problem than you started off with, at the end of which, Americans are saying "wasn't worth it".

The thing about the terrain is, you can't just roll in there with the Abrams and pull down the statue of Kim Il Sung "problem solved", they can evacuate the city and retreat into the mountain fortress, and then you have to climb up there and dig them out, dismounted, as in no tanks, Iraq was a mounted war, but Korea would force you to dismount, into wooded rugged mountainous terrain, against a dug in asymetrical opponent who is just fighting to inflict casualties without engaging you decisively, mines, booby traps, snipers, etc, and that's where you can get back into "Vietnam" like attrition.

[The Conservative]

Thing is, I'm not even saying that you would "lose" per se, certainly, America has enough raw power to pound the North Korean regime out of Pyongyang and effectively depose them in the city, but that doesn't mean they couldn't render it a pyrric victory, where it turned into a brutal slog that went on and on, with far more attrition than Americans were expecting, and then with unintended consequences which created a bigger problem than you started off with, at the end of which, Americans are saying "wasn't worth it".

The thing about the terrain is, you can't just roll in there with the Abrams and pull down the statue of Kim Il Sung "problem solved", they can evacuate the city and retreat into the mountain fortress, and then you have to climb up there and dig them out, dismounted, as in no tanks, Iraq was a mounted war, but Korea would force you to dismount, into wooded rugged mountainous terrain, against a dug in asymetrical opponent who is just fighting to inflict casualties without engaging you decisively, mines, booby traps, snipers, etc, and that's where you can get back into "Vietnam" like attrition.

We also have weapons designed to take care of mountain fortresses now... actually we had them during the first Iraq War, but we actually improved on them significantly since then.

That being said, unless they have an entire eco system underground we could starve them out... time would be on our side in that case.

Although honestly, in NK wanted to play with the big boys, I think their biggest issue would be dealing with China before the US.

[Smitty-48]

Nah, I wouldn't buy the MIC hype, the Isrealis have all those weapons, and they can't even dig Hezbollah out of their entrenchments in South Lebanon, and South Lebanon ain't no mountain fortress, but the Isrealis still call South Lebanon "Little Vietnam".

[TheOneX]

You seem to be confusing Korea and Vietnam, in the Korean War, Nixon was only Vice President, the President's were Truman and Eisenhower, but in both cases, Korea and then Vietnam, America went in overconfident and found out the hard way, Korea resulting in a stalemate, Vietnam resulting in fleeing the field, yet both were assumed to be a cake walk going in.

The stalemate wasn't with North Korea, the stalemate was with China and Russia. Without China entering the war on North Korea's side North Korea does not exist today in any form. At the time China entered the war North Korea had all but lost the war.

The North Koreans now are far more capable than the North Koreans then, the North Korean army in 1950 is not what you would be facing, the North Koreans went on to build a serious army after the Korean War, I wouldn't underestimate the North Koreans, although of course you will, as military overconfidence is an American pathology, hubris, ever your undoing.

If you're going into North Korea to topple the regime, it's going to be asymetrical, and in case you haven't noticed, America sucks at asymetrical, to wit, they're not likely to come out and "fight fair", they're going to hunker down and play the spoilers, and the "regime dead enders" always have a way of spoiling America's "Mission Accomplished" moments.

It's not a question of having to overrun American forces and then march on Washington DC, every adversary knows, that all they have to do, is spoil the ticker tape parade, by hunkering down and dragging it out, inflicting casualties all the way, until the American public has had enough, and then just orders Washington to throw the towel in and withdraw, suing for cold peace over prolonged and flagged draped hot war.

I was just making a historical clarification of the situation in the Korean War. As far as going to war with North Korea now, I am only ok with it if we take a more minor support role using just our air and navy superiority to cripple North Korea while China and South Korea do most of the heavy lifting on the ground. I want nothing to do with a war in North Korea without Chinese support and involvement.

[Smitty-48]

The South Koreans won't do it, the South Koreans do not want to collapse the North, they are afraid of what happens when the wall comes down, they don't want to be stuck with North Korea, they don't want to get into killing Koreans in huge numbers, while refugees stream into the South, lest it destabilize the ROK, they are not going offensive, I would bet that they would refuse to fight significantly north of the DMZ, they wil defend the ROK but they're not going all the way to Pyongyang, if America goes in there, don't count on allies going with you, assume that you will be going in alone, in terms of offensive and regime change.

When was the last time it worked out for America, saying "don't worry, our stalwart allies will do all the heavy lifting"? I mean, c'mon, America will be doing all the heavy lifting, don't kid yourselves.

[The Conservative]

The South Koreans won't do it, the South Koreans do not want to collapse the North, they are afraid of what happens when the wall comes down, they don't want to be stuck with North Korea, they don't want to get into killing Koreans in huge numbers, while refugees stream into the South, lest it destabilize the ROK, they are not going offensive, I would bet that they would refuse to fight significantly north of the DMZ, they wil defend the ROKm but they're not going all the way to Pyongyang, if America goes in there, don't count on allies going with you, assume that you will be going in alone, in terms of offensive and regime change.

Honestly, I'd just rather go in, make noise, kick down some doors, and then leave... this rebuilding shit isn't what we need to do. Especially since the UN has failed to do it on so many levels it's not funny.