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

[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.

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

A lot of targets that shoot back.


And I thought the Air force would be blowing up the artillery that was killing civilians in Seoul.


Confidence is a good thing. Over confidence will get your people killed.

 

[Bleipriester]

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

I doubt that bombing cities will have significant effects other then increasing the Koreans´ fighting spirit.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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?

We won in Korea because the South Korean people are still free.

We won in Vietnam, but the leftists lost it.

We won in Iraq, but Obama lost the peace to ISIS.

We won in Afghanistan but are losing the occupation.

 

[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

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.

as stated before--air is much more effective with LGB/etc---even more effective than in PG1
no---it doesn't mean SK and US arty is choosing anything

the largest, standard NK arty piece cannot even REACH Seoul!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! with rocket assisted rounds!!! --you must not be following my posts

most of their rocket launchers can't reach Seoul !!

 

[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?

We won in Korea because the South Korean people are still free.

We won in Vietnam, but the leftists lost it.

We won in Iraq, but Obama lost the peace to ISIS.

We won in Afghanistan but are losing the occupation.

Your definitioin of victory is different from mine!

 

[harmonica]

a 203mm arty piece is HUGE...a BIG gun....even THIS gun cannot reach Seoul from the border!!
Seoul to the Border is about 30 miles??
that's the part of the CLOSEST border

 

[harmonica]

just look up NK artillery--jesus christ--if you know nothing about arty
I stated and linked long ago, a lot of NK arty would not be able to hit Seoul

also:

It quickly becomes clear that the vast majority of themaren’t actually in range of Seoul itself.

if you knew anything about arty, you would've known this---I stated this long ago
North Korean artillery and the concept of "flattening Seoul" - a breakdown

 

[Baz Ares]

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?

I would like to say, in today's DOPer ALT-FACTS Douche world of thinking.
Those all were wins. We went, We killed, We rebuild their nation, We almost left.
Did I miss any major point?

FFS! Dang! That's right, our soldiers died for nothang.
So after congratulating them and their wounds. Ask them was it worth it?
If they say YES. Tell them they got a daily reminder that will adjust that thinking, over time.
If they say NO, they were used. Dang! Why do you vote repugger still?

 

[TomParks]

just look up NK artillery--jesus christ--if you know nothing about arty
I stated and linked long ago, a lot of NK arty would not be able to hit Seoul

also:

It quickly becomes clear that the vast majority of themaren’t actually in range of Seoul itself.

if you knew anything about arty, you would've known this---I stated this long ago
North Korean artillery and the concept of "flattening Seoul" - a breakdown

Thanks for the very good article

 

[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?

I would like to say, in today's DOPer ALT-FACTS Douche world of thinking.
Those all were wins. We went, We killed, We rebuild their nation, We almost left.
Did I miss any major point?

FFS! Dang! That's right, our soldiers died for nothang.
So after congratulating them and their wounds. Ask them was it worth it?
If they say YES. Tell them they got a daily reminder that will adjust that thinking, over time.
If they say NO, they were used. Dang! Why do you vote repugger still?

They sure did not feel like wins to me! I just do not know what to say to some one that thinks they were wins. I guess what do you define as a loss?

 

[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

A lot of targets that shoot back.


And I thought the Air force would be blowing up the artillery that was killing civilians in Seoul.


Confidence is a good thing. Over confidence will get your people killed.

Not overconfidence

Reality. We are the best in the world
They cannot go head to head with us

Any invading force from the north would be wiped out

 

[Baz Ares]

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?

I would like to say, in today's DOPer ALT-FACTS Douche world of thinking.
Those all were wins. We went, We killed, We rebuild their nation, We almost left.
Did I miss any major point?

FFS! Dang! That's right, our soldiers died for nothang.
So after congratulating them and their wounds. Ask them was it worth it?
If they say YES. Tell them they got a daily reminder that will adjust that thinking, over time.
If they say NO, they were used. Dang! Why do you vote repugger still?

They sure did not feel like wins to me! I just do not know what to say to some one that thinks they were wins. I guess what do you define as a loss?

Doing the same thang over and over? No wins after WWII.
So I understand why DOPers feel they are wins. I see few Dems
wanting to invade other places as a party platform.

 

[rightwinger]

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?

I would like to say, in today's DOPer ALT-FACTS Douche world of thinking.
Those all were wins. We went, We killed, We rebuild their nation, We almost left.
Did I miss any major point?

FFS! Dang! That's right, our soldiers died for nothang.
So after congratulating them and their wounds. Ask them was it worth it?
If they say YES. Tell them they got a daily reminder that will adjust that thinking, over time.
If they say NO, they were used. Dang! Why do you vote repugger still?

They sure did not feel like wins to me! I just do not know what to say to some one that thinks they were wins. I guess what do you define as a loss?

Doing the same thang over and over? No wins after WWII.
So I understand why DOPers feel they are wins. I see few Dems
wanting to invade other places as a party platform.

You forgot about Grenada

 

[Baz Ares]

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

A lot of targets that shoot back.


And I thought the Air force would be blowing up the artillery that was killing civilians in Seoul.


Confidence is a good thing. Over confidence will get your people killed.

Not overconfidence

Reality. We are the best in the world
They cannot go head to head with us

Any invading force from the north would be wiped out

Mass killing remote machines, with a camera and GPS bombing, is great.
What mass army can move today, with our Air Force overhead?

 

[Baz Ares]

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?

I would like to say, in today's DOPer ALT-FACTS Douche world of thinking.
Those all were wins. We went, We killed, We rebuild their nation, We almost left.
Did I miss any major point?

FFS! Dang! That's right, our soldiers died for nothang.
So after congratulating them and their wounds. Ask them was it worth it?
If they say YES. Tell them they got a daily reminder that will adjust that thinking, over time.
If they say NO, they were used. Dang! Why do you vote repugger still?

They sure did not feel like wins to me! I just do not know what to say to some one that thinks they were wins. I guess what do you define as a loss?

Doing the same thang over and over? No wins after WWII.
So I understand why DOPers feel they are wins. I see few Dems
wanting to invade other places as a party platform.

You forgot about Grenada

Come on. More Americans died and were wounded in the LV Shooting. Please try for a better military win.
That our 100% Basic Gun Nutter American Born Terrorist can't rake up more scores. But yes, it was a full type win.

 

[rightwinger]

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

A lot of targets that shoot back.


And I thought the Air force would be blowing up the artillery that was killing civilians in Seoul.


Confidence is a good thing. Over confidence will get your people killed.

Not overconfidence

Reality. We are the best in the world
They cannot go head to head with us

Any invading force from the north would be wiped out

Mass killing remote machines, with a camera and GPS bombing, is great.
What mass army can move today, with our Air Force overhead?

They can't

Their tanks would just be target practice. We control the battle space

 

[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?

I would like to say, in today's DOPer ALT-FACTS Douche world of thinking.
Those all were wins. We went, We killed, We rebuild their nation, We almost left.
Did I miss any major point?

FFS! Dang! That's right, our soldiers died for nothang.
So after congratulating them and their wounds. Ask them was it worth it?
If they say YES. Tell them they got a daily reminder that will adjust that thinking, over time.
If they say NO, they were used. Dang! Why do you vote repugger still?

They sure did not feel like wins to me! I just do not know what to say to some one that thinks they were wins. I guess what do you define as a loss?

Doing the same thang over and over? No wins after WWII.
So I understand why DOPers feel they are wins. I see few Dems
wanting to invade other places as a party platform.

You forgot about Grenada

Can realy count Grenada? Do wet paper bags count?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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?

We won in Korea because the South Korean people are still free.

We won in Vietnam, but the leftists lost it.

We won in Iraq, but Obama lost the peace to ISIS.

We won in Afghanistan but are losing the occupation.

Your definitioin of victory is different from mine!

Then your definition of victory is wrong and needs adjustment.

 

[kiwiman127]

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.

hey smart guy--if you actually read and understood my post, I said that what the General says is '''possible'''
usually these articles [ MSM ] exaggerate/leave out important info to get readership

''tens of millions''?? sure, with a nuke war--but not a conventional war..the US had 400,000 deaths in all of WW2
duh duh--yes with a nuke war, it would be a problem--this is a no-brainer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

in a conventional war, no so much
air is much more deadly than it was even in 1965
for the NK conventional attack to be successful, ALL the NK services have to:
1. be efficient in their specialty--armor/infantry/logistics/air/AA
2. work together as a combined arms military
----the AA has to be able to deal with the SK/US air--which I highly doubt they could--as we see in the Iraq war their air was worthless--this is right after Iraq got a lot of experience and training in the Iran-Iraq war
--Korea much smaller land mass than Iraq---water surrounds Korea---US carriers can cover more of the country easier than they did in Iraq
.....carriers and the Air Force can hit not only NK forces in the south easier, they can also hit NK easier than hitting forces n Iraq---much more refueling needed there

the Iraqis had great, much experience -- and you see they failed miserably

air power is a major factor--as in the Korean War and the Persian Gulf wars---and US air has shown many times it's efficiency/professionalism/etc

First of all, I find very humorous that you think you know more than a general, who oversaw and studied different scenarios, using high level intelligence, that you a zero access to.
Secondly, it's a given that if North Korea was invaded, they would let loose their nuclear arsenal. That would insure that the tens of million. Seoul has 25 million people living in the city, NK has allegedly nukes pointed at Japan also. And then there's the citizens of NK.
Back during the Korean War, when nukes didn't come into play, about 5 million people died.
===================================
"The Korean War was relatively short but exceptionally bloody. Nearly 5 million people died. More than half of these–about 10 percent of Korea’s prewar population–were civilians. (This rate of civilian casualties was higher than World War II’s and Vietnam’s.) Almost 40,000 Americans died in action in Korea, and more than 100,000 were wounded."
Korean War - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com
==================================
Obviously, with nukes in play, the death toll will make the Korean War look like child play

I find it humorous you believe everything you read in the MSM...they never lie/exaggerate/distort/etc

It seems you can't read or refuse to read. I used historical facts.
Go away and come back, when you want to deal with reality.

 

[rightwinger]

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?

I would like to say, in today's DOPer ALT-FACTS Douche world of thinking.
Those all were wins. We went, We killed, We rebuild their nation, We almost left.
Did I miss any major point?

FFS! Dang! That's right, our soldiers died for nothang.
So after congratulating them and their wounds. Ask them was it worth it?
If they say YES. Tell them they got a daily reminder that will adjust that thinking, over time.
If they say NO, they were used. Dang! Why do you vote repugger still?

They sure did not feel like wins to me! I just do not know what to say to some one that thinks they were wins. I guess what do you define as a loss?

Doing the same thang over and over? No wins after WWII.
So I understand why DOPers feel they are wins. I see few Dems
wanting to invade other places as a party platform.

You forgot about Grenada

Can realy count Grenada? Do wet paper bags count?

Tough battle but we persevered