North Korea News

[SilverEagle]

Some more fun.

Would China really risk M.A.D. over N.K.? Seems to me like China would balk at saving N.K. when it comes down to the reality of the situation. They're creating too much wealth with the U.S. to save N.K. IMO.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/20/politics/ ... rea-china/

[The Conservative]

Afghanistan was the nightmare scenario for the Navy, because what Afghanistan proved, is that the US could seize an entire country, far from any shore, in the mdidle of fucking nowhere, with just B-52's and Green Beret's, and then fly the Paratroopers in to reinforce, and if they could do that there, which was called "mission impossible" before they did it, then they can do that anywhere, meaning that XVIII Airborne Corps following the Air Force bombing the living shit out of everything, just rendered the entire Marine Corps obselete.

Navy wouldn't be used in places like Afghanistan... they'd be used in places where if you wanted to cut off major sources of income/revenue, or help comes from the ocean.

[Smitty-48]

The problem for the Navy, is that with all these bases all over the world, most of the lift can be conducted by non-combatants, the backbone of the sealift force is not even the Navy, the sealift force is called the Ready Reserve Fleet, it's basically just commercial vessels crewed by civilians, the only role the Navy has is to escort them from dock to dock. Afghanistan is a perfect example, the US flew a hundred thousand troops in there, and whatever heavy equipment they needed, came by commercial sealift from the dock in Pakistan.

Try doing that with only airlift. The sea still matters.

The sea still matters, but you don't actually need the Navy and Marine Corps to conduct Expeditionary Warfare anymore, they Navy still has a role for sea control, and sea denial, ruling the waves as it were, but they are no longer needed to go ashore, the Air Force and Army can go ashore by airpower alone, destroy the enemy, capture the beachhead, and then as far as sealift goes, that's not the Navy nor Marine Corps doing that, again, that's the Ready Reserve Fleet, which is not a navy nor an amphibious force, but rather a chartered quasi-commerical enterprize, contracted cargo ships, Ro-Ro, crewed by civilians.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Some more fun.

Would China really risk M.A.D. over N.K.? Seems to me like China would balk at saving N.K. when it comes down to the reality of the situation. They're creating too much wealth with the U.S. to save N.K. IMO.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/20/politics/ ... rea-china/

Notice that nobody is sure whether they're gearing up to fight the Norks or us... It would be nice to know that...

[The Conservative]

Some more fun.

Would China really risk M.A.D. over N.K.? Seems to me like China would balk at saving N.K. when it comes down to the reality of the situation. They're creating too much wealth with the U.S. to save N.K. IMO.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/20/politics/ ... rea-china/

I've said it before, China, if it came down to protecting NK from itself would let the country burn. It's not going to get taken down with a despot that can't do anything, including meet the hight requirement for war.

[SilverEagle]

Some more fun.

Would China really risk M.A.D. over N.K.? Seems to me like China would balk at saving N.K. when it comes down to the reality of the situation. They're creating too much wealth with the U.S. to save N.K. IMO.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/20/politics/ ... rea-china/

Hey! Let's get back on the topic. NORTH KOREA NEWS!

[SilverEagle]

Some more fun.

Would China really risk M.A.D. over N.K.? Seems to me like China would balk at saving N.K. when it comes down to the reality of the situation. They're creating too much wealth with the U.S. to save N.K. IMO.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/20/politics/ ... rea-china/

Notice that nobody is sure whether they're gearing up to fight the Norks or us... It would be nice to know that...

Yeah that would be nice.

[ssu]

If we deal with NK, we are not going to last long enough there to use any of the equipment... as we have been told time and time again, the line there is nothing more than a speedbump...

?

Not sure what you mean here.

What we tend to forget that all US wars now have been operations of America's choosing: the resources and logistics have been put in place, the operations have been planned and executed when the US has chosen to do it. Yet North Korea is no juggernaut, and doesn't simply have an economy or the resources to fight a war with the US. Yet when an attack comes at a surprise, it's a different game.

I've said it before, China, if it came down to protecting NK from itself would let the country burn. It's not going to get taken down with a despot that can't do anything, including meet the hight requirement for war.

Last time China didn't burn when they saved North Korea from the jaws of defeat.

After all, they were just Chinese volunteers/i].

Why would you think the US would fight differently than last time? They surely knew that they were against a) the Chinese and b) the Russian Air Force. Yet for some reason the US didn't start bombing China or Russia.

Now you can find books like this about the Korean War. Not earlier...

[Smitty-48]

Afghanistan was the nightmare scenario for the Navy, because what Afghanistan proved, is that the US could seize an entire country, far from any shore, in the mdidle of fucking nowhere, with just B-52's and Green Beret's, and then fly the Paratroopers in to reinforce, and if they could do that there, which was called "mission impossible" before they did it, then they can do that anywhere, meaning that XVIII Airborne Corps following the Air Force bombing the living shit out of everything, just rendered the entire Marine Corps obselete.

Navy wouldn't be used in places like Afghanistan... they'd be used in places where if you wanted to cut off major sources of income/revenue, or help comes from the ocean.

Indeed, it's called Sea Control and Sea Denial, but the thing is, short of an actual shooting war, the US is never called upon to do it, when was the last time the US enforcing a blockade was the center of gravity in any operation? The US didn't even enforce a blockade in Vietnam, massive war which the US was losing, but still wouldn't blockade the Soviets, for fear of starting World War Three, that's the thing, unless you are actually fighting World War Three, the Navy is basicallly a constabularly, a reallly really heavily armed Coast Guard, when the truth is, you could do most of what the Navy does, with the Coast Guard, and this is sort of thing which keeps Admirals up at night, trying to come up with reasons why the US Navy needs to be so big and so heavily armed, and therefore so expensive, for anything short of World War Three, with the assumption that World War Three wouldn't just escalate to a nuclear standoff right away, rendering the Navy a ballistic missile submarine force, with a giant exponentially expensive but otherwise useless surface fleet attached to it like a trillion dollar tumor, which is not a given, because that may in fact be the case.

[BjornP]

Afaik, isn't the main reason China's opposed to a one-Korea policy, the presence of US troops in S.Korea? If the US, S.Korea and China came to an understanding of mutual non-aggression, border agreements and maybe some coal at a discount for China and the US troops leaving the Korean peninsula, I expect China might change their tune.