North Korea News

[SuburbanFarmer]

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.

No, they're opposed to having a US ally on their border. It's a sensible policy, but nothing to go WW3 over...

[The Conservative]

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...

We have something like 30K troops at the DM zone. NK has 1.2 Million plus another 7.5 Million in reserve... the US military may be some of the best out there, but at a minimum of 40/1 odds, I don't think we would do much agains those odds.

We'd put up a fight, but like the ocean, the troops would be overwhelmed in time. And not enough time to get reinforcements.

[The Conservative]

As for the rest, China's view of NK has soured as of late, I don't expect the same offers to be there for NK from China if they get attacked this time.

[SuburbanFarmer]

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...

We have something like 30K troops at the DM zone. NK has 1.2 Million plus another 7.5 Million in reserve... the US military may be some of the best out there, but at a minimum of 40/1 odds, I don't think we would do much agains those odds.

We'd put up a fight, but like the ocean, the troops would be overwhelmed in time. And not enough time to get reinforcements.

If only we had some sort of tools to kill a massive number of troops in a moment...

[The Conservative]

?

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.

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...

We have something like 30K troops at the DM zone. NK has 1.2 Million plus another 7.5 Million in reserve... the US military may be some of the best out there, but at a minimum of 40/1 odds, I don't think we would do much agains those odds.

We'd put up a fight, but like the ocean, the troops would be overwhelmed in time. And not enough time to get reinforcements.

If only we had some sort of tools to kill a massive number of troops in a moment...

You are going towards potato again...

[Speaker to Animals]

The Navy is cool. I don't mean to disparage them. But the idea that they can compete with the Army and Air Force at what those branches do is just silly.

The carrier strike group duplicates, at great costs, the roles better carried out by the Army and Air Force.

I still think we need fleets. We still need cruisers, destroyers, and submarines.

The carrier strike group has for a long time been nothing more than a dick waving contest. In every engagement in recent decades, by the time your carrier group gets there, the Army and Air Force already sent in civil engineering to build airbases, deployed tens of thousands of troops, and at least several wings of fighters and bombers.

Where carrier groups are useful is against much weaker foes and dealing with these world police missions like in Haiti. But is that really worth the costs? I don't think so. I would rather have more submarines and missile cruisers, frankly.

[Smitty-48]

The North Koreans have no air defense of any real significance, nothing the US couldn't knock down with ease, at which point it would be a slaughter, Highway of Death, but the NK strategy is not actually to invade South Korea en masse, they are an artillery based Army, Soviet doctrine on steroids, holding the city of Seoul hostage, due to its proximity to the border, but other than wrecking Seoul to one degree or another, they have no hope of going over to the offense and driving deep into the ROK, because without air cover, they would be pummeled into a paste before they even came to grips with American ground forces beyond the Cavalry screen.

They could do some assymetrical, spetsnaz and whatnot, but KPA armored collumns rolling south, that would be a suicide mission.

[The Conservative]

The North Koreans have no air defense of any real significance, nothing the US couldn't knock down with ease, at which point it would be a slaughter, Highway of Death, but the NK strategy is not actually to invade South Korea en masse, they are an artillery based Army, Soviet doctrine on steroids, holding the city of Seoul hostage, due to its proximity to the border, but other than wrecking Seoul to one degree or another, they have no hope of going over to the offense and driving deep into the ROK, because without air cover, they would be pummeled into a paste before they even came to grips with American ground forces beyond the Cavalry screen.

This is where the navy would come into play. Shoot shells into land targets... now that be fun to see.

[SuburbanFarmer]

We have something like 30K troops at the DM zone. NK has 1.2 Million plus another 7.5 Million in reserve... the US military may be some of the best out there, but at a minimum of 40/1 odds, I don't think we would do much agains those odds.

We'd put up a fight, but like the ocean, the troops would be overwhelmed in time. And not enough time to get reinforcements.

If only we had some sort of tools to kill a massive number of troops in a moment...

You are going towards potato again...

Well hell, how are those troops outfitted? I'm pretty sure we figured out what human-wave attacks are good for 100 years ago.
On the defense? Give me an F-16 wing, and a few hours.

The equipment is what matters.

[ssu]

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.

Putting civilian ships in harms way could be a problem. It's totally understandable that countries want Ready Reserve Fleet with Reservist or some Auxilary force where you can trust the crews. Otherwise, wouldn't be a great thing to bribe the Thirld World country crew to simply ditch a ro-ro ship full of material? And in some total war scenario with North Korea have that amphibious capability might be good if the ports are bombed out, but otherwise it's more useful just to have a ton civilian of Ro-Ro ships. With trustworthy crews that will take them into dangerous waters.

It's still an impressive fleet:


Yet then there's the one problem with civilian ships. They aren't armed and don't have things like modern CIWS. And when you start protecting/arming those ships, back to square one.

When transiting to war:


After an encounter with two Exocet missiles, before sinking: