The US will lose in a war against North Korea, a former Pentagon commander warns

[Jarlaxle]

Wow, we have highly qualified arm chair military geniuses right here on USMB, who don't need the any experience or the on ground intelligence of planning any scenarios of attempting of invading North Korea.
But Lt. Gen. Jan-Marc Jouas has.
"From January 2012 to 2014, Jouas was intimately involved in formulating plans to counter a North Korean attack on South Korea. "This threat was the most dangerous I’d faced since the end of the Cold War, and planning for it the most challenging problem I’d encountered in my 35-year career," he said."
We might not lose the war, but the causalities, would number in the tens of millions (which would include tens of thousands of American troops and citizens. and that's just on the Korean peninsula. NK could nuke Japan and other Asian targets.
When I see arm chair generals with absolutely zero experience in planning military actions, criticizing a general who was in charge of the military in Korea, it's clear to these fools are complete idiots.
Un-fucking believable.

the general is the dumbass

He said it would take "days" to eliminate North Korean artillery, rockets and missiles that threaten the South Korean capital of Seoul, which is home to 25 million people.

if they are using arty/rockets, and missiles on Seoul, that means the SK and US forces will move and destroy the NK military faster---get it???!!!???
he says they are going to use their military might against Seoul instead of the attacking military force???
yeah--he's a smart guy

you know I see this crap in other forums.......you think the US and SK will be like snowmen--just sitting there doing nothing

We are very adept at quickly locating where artillery fire is coming from

Sure, I have no doubt that we would locate and destroy their thousands of artillery pieces at a very nice rate.


Possibly effectively ending it in a matter of weeks, maybe even days.


The death toll might only be in the tens of thousands.

They have had 64 years to harden those artillery emplacements. It is not like they are sitting in an open field.

Which is why nerve gas is the right tool for the job.

 

[harmonica]

so what's your scenario? NK will try to defeat SK with NK forces staying in tunnels?
NK is not attacking? they stay in the tunnels?
what's going on?

The scenario is the US attacking NK, right?

- Wasting fighting power by going beyond the most secured border in the world is not effective.
- Tunnel systems can be effective against invaders. They cannot provide support for offensive operations abroad.
- However, if NK feels strong enough, they could use an US made war to capture the south anyway.

remember the Maginot Line? --the Germans just out flanked it
the Japanese had massive tunnels on Iwo Jima--loss
the Nam tunnels were not the game changer for NV...the VC did not win the Nam war--the NVA did
you don't win by using defense--every military man knows this

Look up Vietnam.

what?? the NVA did not sweep into Saigon??!!!! what the heck are you talking about?? the NVA ATTACKED into SV
???!!
View attachment 159976

What is the date of that photo?

when the NVA went into Saigon--1975

 

[harmonica]

so what's your scenario? NK will try to defeat SK with NK forces staying in tunnels?
NK is not attacking? they stay in the tunnels?
what's going on?

The scenario is the US attacking NK, right?

- Wasting fighting power by going beyond the most secured border in the world is not effective.
- Tunnel systems can be effective against invaders. They cannot provide support for offensive operations abroad.
- However, if NK feels strong enough, they could use an US made war to capture the south anyway.

remember the Maginot Line? --the Germans just out flanked it
the Japanese had massive tunnels on Iwo Jima--loss
the Nam tunnels were not the game changer for NV...the VC did not win the Nam war--the NVA did
you don't win by using defense--every military man knows this

Look up Vietnam.

what?? the NVA did not sweep into Saigon??!!!! what the heck are you talking about?? the NVA ATTACKED into SV
???!!
View attachment 159976

So you arguing with the logic that you won´t capture anything if you don´t attack?

????

 

[rightwinger]

We wouldn't lose
N Korea lacks the economy for a sustained conflict

But we may not like the casualties

They don´t need that economy. A look at the geography and it is clear it is them who set the rules of the war.

War = $$$$$$

Only for the US. The US lost in Vietnam and they would lose in North Korea. The mountains, the tunnels, millions of soldiers. The first Korea war is a good example for that the destruction of the cities by heavy bombings will not win the war, particularly now as the North Koreans are prepared for the US warfare.

Depends if China will support them and we can cut off their supplies

N Korea lacks the economy for a sustained war

North Korea as created large tunnel networks (they were the architects of the tunnel systems in Vietnam btw). These networks don´t only provide tactical and strategical advantages but also are full of supplies, power stations, rest rooms, ect. The units of the Korean People´s Army are trained and supposed to fight independently. There is no cutting supplies. The mountains, caves and tunnels make air support less effective and there are traps everywhere. Also, the number of soldiers surpasses any coalition Trump could create.

Good info

It works great for a static defensive position. They can hold the line at DMZ and still get supplies

But they can't go on the offensive and invade
Also, they lack the economy to sustain a war for very long

They can probably hold that line for some time, but we would be pounding their cities and sources of critical supplies

 

[rightwinger]

so what's your scenario? NK will try to defeat SK with NK forces staying in tunnels?
NK is not attacking? they stay in the tunnels?
what's going on?

The scenario is the US attacking NK, right?

- Wasting fighting power by going beyond the most secured border in the world is not effective.
- Tunnel systems can be effective against invaders. They cannot provide support for offensive operations abroad.
- However, if NK feels strong enough, they could use an US made war to capture the south anyway.

I doubt NK has the capability to move on the offensive

 

[Correll]

Wow, we have highly qualified arm chair military geniuses right here on USMB, who don't need the any experience or the on ground intelligence of planning any scenarios of attempting of invading North Korea.
But Lt. Gen. Jan-Marc Jouas has.
"From January 2012 to 2014, Jouas was intimately involved in formulating plans to counter a North Korean attack on South Korea. "This threat was the most dangerous I’d faced since the end of the Cold War, and planning for it the most challenging problem I’d encountered in my 35-year career," he said."
We might not lose the war, but the causalities, would number in the tens of millions (which would include tens of thousands of American troops and citizens. and that's just on the Korean peninsula. NK could nuke Japan and other Asian targets.
When I see arm chair generals with absolutely zero experience in planning military actions, criticizing a general who was in charge of the military in Korea, it's clear to these fools are complete idiots.
Un-fucking believable.

the general is the dumbass

He said it would take "days" to eliminate North Korean artillery, rockets and missiles that threaten the South Korean capital of Seoul, which is home to 25 million people.

if they are using arty/rockets, and missiles on Seoul, that means the SK and US forces will move and destroy the NK military faster---get it???!!!???
he says they are going to use their military might against Seoul instead of the attacking military force???
yeah--he's a smart guy

you know I see this crap in other forums.......you think the US and SK will be like snowmen--just sitting there doing nothing

We are very adept at quickly locating where artillery fire is coming from

Sure, I have no doubt that we would locate and destroy their thousands of artillery pieces at a very nice rate.


Possibly effectively ending it in a matter of weeks, maybe even days.


The death toll might only be in the tens of thousands.

They have had 64 years to harden those artillery emplacements. It is not like they are sitting in an open field.

Like I said, it would take time to reduce that, and during that time, South Koreans will be dying by the thousands, tens of thousands, maybe more.

 

[Correll]

They don´t need that economy. A look at the geography and it is clear it is them who set the rules of the war.

War = $$$$$$

Only for the US. The US lost in Vietnam and they would lose in North Korea. The mountains, the tunnels, millions of soldiers. The first Korea war is a good example for that the destruction of the cities by heavy bombings will not win the war, particularly now as the North Koreans are prepared for the US warfare.

Depends if China will support them and we can cut off their supplies

N Korea lacks the economy for a sustained war

North Korea as created large tunnel networks (they were the architects of the tunnel systems in Vietnam btw). These networks don´t only provide tactical and strategical advantages but also are full of supplies, power stations, rest rooms, ect. The units of the Korean People´s Army are trained and supposed to fight independently. There is no cutting supplies. The mountains, caves and tunnels make air support less effective and there are traps everywhere. Also, the number of soldiers surpasses any coalition Trump could create.

Good info

It works great for a static defensive position. They can hold the line at DMZ and still get supplies

But they can't go on the offensive and invade
Also, they lack the economy to sustain a war for very long

They can probably hold that line for some time, but we would be pounding their cities and sources of critical supplies

Some of those tunnels have been found to project well under and past the DMZ.

 

[Correll]

so what's your scenario? NK will try to defeat SK with NK forces staying in tunnels?
NK is not attacking? they stay in the tunnels?
what's going on?

The scenario is the US attacking NK, right?

- Wasting fighting power by going beyond the most secured border in the world is not effective.
- Tunnel systems can be effective against invaders. They cannot provide support for offensive operations abroad.
- However, if NK feels strong enough, they could use an US made war to capture the south anyway.

I doubt NK has the capability to move on the offensive

Sure they could. They have fuel for their truck and soldiers that can walk, and quite a lot of them.


If South Korean and US artillery and air power is tied up reducing the North Korean Artillery that is killing the citizens of Seoul by the thousands a day, and it very will could be


then quite a number of tanks and men could be rolling across the border.

 

[Correll]

I think the solution is to openly tell them that we are going to hit their nuclear facilities. Id tell them we have no plans for an invasion or regime change, but if they retaliate in any way, we will be forced to burn down the entirety of NK with nuclear strikes. Kim Jong Un wont like being bitch slapped like that, but im guessing he will prefer that over nuclear destruction.

And they will play the same game and say they will not strike unless we strike first

Hitting their nuclear sites is hitting first

...but if you were KJU, would you retaliate if you knew it would mean the end of your country and your own life?

If you were DJT would you preemptively strike if you knew it would result in a counterattack against Seoul ?

That is why it is a standoff

The stand off has existed because no president has had the balls to go nuclear (rightly so). Nukes were never going to be an option for Obama and NK knew that. Trump is a different story though. If Trump says "we have decided to destroy NK with nukes if they retaliate", they have to take the threat seriously. So, is KJU suicidal? I dont think so.

Why is Trump bringing nuclear war into the equation?
NK has been neutralized for 65 years. They know it, we know it
We don't attack you, you don't attack us

South Korea knows they will pay the price, not Trump

Kim is the one that brought nuclear weapons into the situation by developing them, and repeatedly testing missiles that could be delivery systems.


But the lib blames America, of course.

 

[WinterBorn]

I recall, back in 1990, plenty of experts saying the US would lose to the Iraqi because of the Republican Guard and the massive military they had.

Then I remember reading about some Iraqi soldiers pulling a US vehicle out that was stuck in the sand. Then they surrendered to the US. lol

 

[evenflow1969]

lock this unpatriotic person up!

The U.S. could lose in a war against North Korea, a former Pentagon commander warns

What is your definition of victory in a war? Did we win the Korean war? Did we win in Vietman? Did we win in Iraq? Did we win in Afganastan?

 

[harmonica]

so what's your scenario? NK will try to defeat SK with NK forces staying in tunnels?
NK is not attacking? they stay in the tunnels?
what's going on?

The scenario is the US attacking NK, right?

- Wasting fighting power by going beyond the most secured border in the world is not effective.
- Tunnel systems can be effective against invaders. They cannot provide support for offensive operations abroad.
- However, if NK feels strong enough, they could use an US made war to capture the south anyway.

I doubt NK has the capability to move on the offensive

Sure they could. They have fuel for their truck and soldiers that can walk, and quite a lot of them.


If South Korean and US artillery and air power is tied up reducing the North Korean Artillery that is killing the citizens of Seoul by the thousands a day, and it very will could be


then quite a number of tanks and men could be rolling across the border.

that's not how it works
in WW2, Korea, Arab-Israeli wars, etc there has ALWAYS been arty
air and arty have ALWAYS tried to take out the enemy arty
the enemy just doesn't roll across the border against no opposition

please read my previous posts
a lot of you have no concept of how wars work
there's just so much wrong with some of these scenarios

if using conventional arty/rockets there WON"T be thousands dead per day--please read my previous posts on NK arty
the SKs are just not going to let the enemy bring a picnic basket across the border--the SKs have tanks also
again!! if the NKs are using most of their arty on Seoul, [ which they WON"T ] NK ground units don't have arty support!!!! do you realize what that means?

etc etc jesus christ!

it's not where the NK general moves units on a map and that unit actually moves there
the US and SKs will be COUNTERING the NK strategy/moves/etc

 

[rightwinger]

War = $$$$$$

Only for the US. The US lost in Vietnam and they would lose in North Korea. The mountains, the tunnels, millions of soldiers. The first Korea war is a good example for that the destruction of the cities by heavy bombings will not win the war, particularly now as the North Koreans are prepared for the US warfare.

Depends if China will support them and we can cut off their supplies

N Korea lacks the economy for a sustained war

North Korea as created large tunnel networks (they were the architects of the tunnel systems in Vietnam btw). These networks don´t only provide tactical and strategical advantages but also are full of supplies, power stations, rest rooms, ect. The units of the Korean People´s Army are trained and supposed to fight independently. There is no cutting supplies. The mountains, caves and tunnels make air support less effective and there are traps everywhere. Also, the number of soldiers surpasses any coalition Trump could create.

Good info

It works great for a static defensive position. They can hold the line at DMZ and still get supplies

But they can't go on the offensive and invade
Also, they lack the economy to sustain a war for very long

They can probably hold that line for some time, but we would be pounding their cities and sources of critical supplies

Some of those tunnels have been found to project well under and past the DMZ.

That is not an offensive

 

[rightwinger]

And they will play the same game and say they will not strike unless we strike first

Hitting their nuclear sites is hitting first

...but if you were KJU, would you retaliate if you knew it would mean the end of your country and your own life?

If you were DJT would you preemptively strike if you knew it would result in a counterattack against Seoul ?

That is why it is a standoff

The stand off has existed because no president has had the balls to go nuclear (rightly so). Nukes were never going to be an option for Obama and NK knew that. Trump is a different story though. If Trump says "we have decided to destroy NK with nukes if they retaliate", they have to take the threat seriously. So, is KJU suicidal? I dont think so.

Why is Trump bringing nuclear war into the equation?
NK has been neutralized for 65 years. They know it, we know it
We don't attack you, you don't attack us

South Korea knows they will pay the price, not Trump

Kim is the one that brought nuclear weapons into the situation by developing them, and repeatedly testing missiles that could be delivery systems.


But the lib blames America, of course.

Very true

But how should we react?

Should we do whatever it takes to eliminate them or should we continue the stalemate?

 

[Correll]

so what's your scenario? NK will try to defeat SK with NK forces staying in tunnels?
NK is not attacking? they stay in the tunnels?
what's going on?

The scenario is the US attacking NK, right?

- Wasting fighting power by going beyond the most secured border in the world is not effective.
- Tunnel systems can be effective against invaders. They cannot provide support for offensive operations abroad.
- However, if NK feels strong enough, they could use an US made war to capture the south anyway.

I doubt NK has the capability to move on the offensive

Sure they could. They have fuel for their truck and soldiers that can walk, and quite a lot of them.


If South Korean and US artillery and air power is tied up reducing the North Korean Artillery that is killing the citizens of Seoul by the thousands a day, and it very will could be


then quite a number of tanks and men could be rolling across the border.

that's not how it works
in WW2, Korea, Arab-Israeli wars, etc there has ALWAYS been arty
air and arty have ALWAYS tried to take out the enemy arty
the enemy just doesn't roll across the border against no opposition

please read my previous posts
a lot of you have no concept of how wars work
there's just so much wrong with some of these scenarios

if using conventional arty/rockets there WON"T be thousands dead per day--please read my previous posts on NK arty
the SKs are just not going to let the enemy bring a picnic basket across the border--the SKs have tanks also
again!! if the NKs are using most of their arty on Seoul, [ which they WON"T ] NK ground units don't have arty support!!!! do you realize what that means?

etc etc jesus christ!

it's not where the NK general moves units on a map and that unit actually moves there
the US and SKs will be COUNTERING the NK strategy/moves/etc

Yes, it would mean that the outnumbered Southern and American artillery will have to chose between saving thousands of civilian lives or supporting the defending troops.


And sure there would be opposition. And at least initially the numbers of the north would allow them to take ground and push on.


I'm sure losses would be very high. IMO, almost certainly unsustainable.

 

[Correll]

Only for the US. The US lost in Vietnam and they would lose in North Korea. The mountains, the tunnels, millions of soldiers. The first Korea war is a good example for that the destruction of the cities by heavy bombings will not win the war, particularly now as the North Koreans are prepared for the US warfare.

Depends if China will support them and we can cut off their supplies

N Korea lacks the economy for a sustained war

North Korea as created large tunnel networks (they were the architects of the tunnel systems in Vietnam btw). These networks don´t only provide tactical and strategical advantages but also are full of supplies, power stations, rest rooms, ect. The units of the Korean People´s Army are trained and supposed to fight independently. There is no cutting supplies. The mountains, caves and tunnels make air support less effective and there are traps everywhere. Also, the number of soldiers surpasses any coalition Trump could create.

Good info

It works great for a static defensive position. They can hold the line at DMZ and still get supplies

But they can't go on the offensive and invade
Also, they lack the economy to sustain a war for very long

They can probably hold that line for some time, but we would be pounding their cities and sources of critical supplies

Some of those tunnels have been found to project well under and past the DMZ.

That is not an offensive

If armed troops pour up out of them and attack the front line defenses from behind, it's an offensive.

 

[Correll]

...but if you were KJU, would you retaliate if you knew it would mean the end of your country and your own life?

If you were DJT would you preemptively strike if you knew it would result in a counterattack against Seoul ?

That is why it is a standoff

The stand off has existed because no president has had the balls to go nuclear (rightly so). Nukes were never going to be an option for Obama and NK knew that. Trump is a different story though. If Trump says "we have decided to destroy NK with nukes if they retaliate", they have to take the threat seriously. So, is KJU suicidal? I dont think so.

Why is Trump bringing nuclear war into the equation?
NK has been neutralized for 65 years. They know it, we know it
We don't attack you, you don't attack us

South Korea knows they will pay the price, not Trump

Kim is the one that brought nuclear weapons into the situation by developing them, and repeatedly testing missiles that could be delivery systems.


But the lib blames America, of course.

Very true

But how should we react?

Should we do whatever it takes to eliminate them or should we continue the stalemate?

IMO?


PUll out.


The South Koreans we fought against long ago and have a moral obligation to, are mostly dead and a rapidly decreasing portion of an South Korean that is increasingly anti-American.


Let South Korean, be responsible for it's own protection.



North Korean is well outside of our area of control, so they are not our responsibility.


China likes to think they are a world power. Let them handle it.

 

[rightwinger]

so what's your scenario? NK will try to defeat SK with NK forces staying in tunnels?
NK is not attacking? they stay in the tunnels?
what's going on?

The scenario is the US attacking NK, right?

- Wasting fighting power by going beyond the most secured border in the world is not effective.
- Tunnel systems can be effective against invaders. They cannot provide support for offensive operations abroad.
- However, if NK feels strong enough, they could use an US made war to capture the south anyway.

I doubt NK has the capability to move on the offensive

Sure they could. They have fuel for their truck and soldiers that can walk, and quite a lot of them.


If South Korean and US artillery and air power is tied up reducing the North Korean Artillery that is killing the citizens of Seoul by the thousands a day, and it very will could be


then quite a number of tanks and men could be rolling across the border.

that's not how it works
in WW2, Korea, Arab-Israeli wars, etc there has ALWAYS been arty
air and arty have ALWAYS tried to take out the enemy arty
the enemy just doesn't roll across the border against no opposition

please read my previous posts
a lot of you have no concept of how wars work
there's just so much wrong with some of these scenarios

if using conventional arty/rockets there WON"T be thousands dead per day--please read my previous posts on NK arty
the SKs are just not going to let the enemy bring a picnic basket across the border--the SKs have tanks also
again!! if the NKs are using most of their arty on Seoul, [ which they WON"T ] NK ground units don't have arty support!!!! do you realize what that means?

etc etc jesus christ!

it's not where the NK general moves units on a map and that unit actually moves there
the US and SKs will be COUNTERING the NK strategy/moves/etc

Yes, it would mean that the outnumbered Southern and American artillery will have to chose between saving thousands of civilian lives or supporting the defending troops.


And sure there would be opposition. And at least initially the numbers of the north would allow them to take ground and push on.


I'm sure losses would be very high. IMO, almost certainly unsustainable.

Numbers mean nothing
Especially when dealing with a despotic isolated nation

They are no match militarily...not even close

 

[rightwinger]

If you were DJT would you preemptively strike if you knew it would result in a counterattack against Seoul ?

That is why it is a standoff

The stand off has existed because no president has had the balls to go nuclear (rightly so). Nukes were never going to be an option for Obama and NK knew that. Trump is a different story though. If Trump says "we have decided to destroy NK with nukes if they retaliate", they have to take the threat seriously. So, is KJU suicidal? I dont think so.

Why is Trump bringing nuclear war into the equation?
NK has been neutralized for 65 years. They know it, we know it
We don't attack you, you don't attack us

South Korea knows they will pay the price, not Trump

Kim is the one that brought nuclear weapons into the situation by developing them, and repeatedly testing missiles that could be delivery systems.


But the lib blames America, of course.

Very true

But how should we react?

Should we do whatever it takes to eliminate them or should we continue the stalemate?

IMO?


PUll out.


The South Koreans we fought against long ago and have a moral obligation to, are mostly dead and a rapidly decreasing portion of an South Korean that is increasingly anti-American.


Let South Korean, be responsible for it's own protection.



North Korean is well outside of our area of control, so they are not our responsibility.


China likes to think they are a world power. Let them handle it.

I agree

We need to reduce our role and let S Korea defend themselves
For the most part, they already do

 

[rightwinger]

so what's your scenario? NK will try to defeat SK with NK forces staying in tunnels?
NK is not attacking? they stay in the tunnels?
what's going on?

The scenario is the US attacking NK, right?

- Wasting fighting power by going beyond the most secured border in the world is not effective.
- Tunnel systems can be effective against invaders. They cannot provide support for offensive operations abroad.
- However, if NK feels strong enough, they could use an US made war to capture the south anyway.

I doubt NK has the capability to move on the offensive

Sure they could. They have fuel for their truck and soldiers that can walk, and quite a lot of them.


If South Korean and US artillery and air power is tied up reducing the North Korean Artillery that is killing the citizens of Seoul by the thousands a day, and it very will could be


then quite a number of tanks and men could be rolling across the border.

Being on the offensive they would just be targets
They do not have air superiority and would be going up against a vastly superior and mobile force

That fuel would quickly run out