North Korea: Can the US Win?

[TheTechnologist]

Didnt nk shoot missiles onto their own populace?
Sounds like it would be an easy win. We all just sit back and drink yager bombs

I disagree, Yeager is nasty. Cherry Bombs!

It's spelled Jaeger. There is a difference.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Carrier Aircraft do have a shorter turn around time compared to GUAM which is many many hours. But it's still not a large air-wing in comparison to the forces involved. I've already stated that clearly..

But we wouldn't keep our planes on Guam once the war started- we would base them either in Japan or in South Korea- depending on how effective NK was.

K, that's a more reasonable response than some people, and I just think that Guam is too far to be tactically meaningful, it's a strategic asset, but the US does not have the forces to be aggressive/offensive, in place.

It has the forces enough to be deterrent against North Korea, but it hasn't put the forces it needs in place to win a war, only to ensure time-and-space to escalate one to astronomic costs. Leading to brinksmanship diplomacy.

Guam is a strategic asset, and is threatened by ICBMs.

But it's not an asset that can be used to support much at any given time.

Guam is not actually 'threatened' by ICBMs- despite the warnings of the governor of Guam.

Guam is a useful staging point and of course where we keep planes staged- ready and available to move to Japan or SK or Taiwan as needed.

Again I will say- I think the predictions that the United States could easily win a war with NK are rather stupid- NK is not Iraq. But if we had a reason we could win a war with NK eventually- but I unless NK actually attacks the United States, I don't see that happening- though with Trump.....frankly who knows.

But the idea that NK could easily invade far into SK is also absurd. NK could do lots of damage to SK, and could possibly take Seoul, but beyond that its doubtful it could do more.

I find your position to be as absurdly unbalanced as those who seem to think that a war with NK would be a walk in the park.

Anything within range of an ICBM with a warhead is "threatened". Not sure why you dismiss that.

Also, people forget that the US lost the Iraq war? Iraq is an Iranian client state that needed Iran's help to defeat ISIS which the US couldn't handle.

I am not arguing that North Korea can conquer South Korea, per se.

I argued their theory of victory is "maintaining the status quo". They just need to raise the costs on the US so high that the US cannot utterly "destroy" them.

Barrage of Howitzers + battleship support. Walk the fire, scorched earth.

Not a scenario I'd like to see.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Didnt nk shoot missiles onto their own populace?
Sounds like it would be an easy win. We all just sit back and drink yager bombs

I disagree, Yeager is nasty. Cherry Bombs!

It's spelled Jaeger. There is a difference.

I stand corrected!

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Let me clue you in a little. I served in the Navy as a nuclear weapons officer. I am not gullible. I have probably forgotten more than you will ever know on this topic. I also specialized in AAW and ASW.

Let's see your bona fides.

I don't present bona fides on the internet because I can make anything up as can you.

But I am published in this field for a think tank, probably more bona fide than you. But we can let the argumentum speak for itself. If you think your Nuclear weapons instruction qualifies you for a top-down look at North Korea's conventional capabilities by all means...explain why you think the KN 06 isn't as capable as the S-300, or something.

In other words, you are full of shit.

Congrats on your publishing for a non-thinking tank, because that is all you have done so far is prove you don't have a clue.

The KN-06 would last about 1 second after the first cruise missile impact on it's radar.

KN-06 like every other piece of artillery the North Has seems to be nicely squirreled away in bunkers. I'm sure the US cruisemissiles will "easily" penetrate those too?

Despite no evidence of that ability.

What it comes down to is you have a paper-thin understanding of the situation and you just tout it, over and over. Claiming I'm full of sh.t for giving you a reply is hardly a retort.

Radar works really well underground, doesn't it? Also, it is not artillery.

All you keep proving is that you have no concept of warfare from a real world standpoint.

Your information is flat out wrong in your knowledge of these systems. Did you get a lot of your info from video games?

I'm sure in your fantasy you'd have won in Iraq too, back in 2004. Unfortunately it's people like you who have no real world understanding, and no concept of the situation, especially vis-a-vis North Korea.

Interesting. What are your qualifications in these matters?

 

[TheTechnologist]

Carrier Aircraft do have a shorter turn around time compared to GUAM which is many many hours. But it's still not a large air-wing in comparison to the forces involved. I've already stated that clearly..

But we wouldn't keep our planes on Guam once the war started- we would base them either in Japan or in South Korea- depending on how effective NK was.

K, that's a more reasonable response than some people, and I just think that Guam is too far to be tactically meaningful, it's a strategic asset, but the US does not have the forces to be aggressive/offensive, in place.

It has the forces enough to be deterrent against North Korea, but it hasn't put the forces it needs in place to win a war, only to ensure time-and-space to escalate one to astronomic costs. Leading to brinksmanship diplomacy.

Guam is a strategic asset, and is threatened by ICBMs.

But it's not an asset that can be used to support much at any given time.

Guam is not actually 'threatened' by ICBMs- despite the warnings of the governor of Guam.

Guam is a useful staging point and of course where we keep planes staged- ready and available to move to Japan or SK or Taiwan as needed.

Again I will say- I think the predictions that the United States could easily win a war with NK are rather stupid- NK is not Iraq. But if we had a reason we could win a war with NK eventually- but I unless NK actually attacks the United States, I don't see that happening- though with Trump.....frankly who knows.

But the idea that NK could easily invade far into SK is also absurd. NK could do lots of damage to SK, and could possibly take Seoul, but beyond that its doubtful it could do more.

I find your position to be as absurdly unbalanced as those who seem to think that a war with NK would be a walk in the park.

Anything within range of an ICBM with a warhead is "threatened". Not sure why you dismiss that.

Also, people forget that the US lost the Iraq war? Iraq is an Iranian client state that needed Iran's help to defeat ISIS which the US couldn't handle.

I am not arguing that North Korea can conquer South Korea, per se.

I argued their theory of victory is "maintaining the status quo". They just need to raise the costs on the US so high that the US cannot utterly "destroy" them.

Barrage of Howitzers + battleship support. Walk the fire, scorched earth.

Not a scenario I'd like to see.

US doesn't really have battleship calbre guns anymore. I don't think the US arsenal at sea will be sufficient to support a massive landing they would have to come into range of Hardened Artillery Sites, and still has to clear the mines first.

 

[toobfreak]

This conventional problem alone is why North Korea has not been dealt with in 50 years, and why it won't be dealt with now except by a madman who clearly has no understanding of Strategy, costs, and what the end-game should look like in the first place.[/QUOTE]

• 
  
  
  • Assuming all you said was true (and it's not), you have just made the best case argument against diplomacy as its own means to an end! In other words, had the world tried diplomacy many years ago (as it had) and admitted in the face of intransigence that obviously North Korea was never going to ever see reason and join the civil community, had we just gone in there then, we could have easily ended decades of posturing, stalemates and saved countless billion of dollars and lives!

• 
  
  
  • Breaking the cycle of endless, futile diplomacy for its own sake, which has failed for 50 years in the face now of certain threat, that isn't the sign of a madman, that is the sign of a pragmatist! Perhaps, finally, the ONE sane leader the world over.

• 
  
  
  • Oh and, wars are not fought and won based on costs vs. rewards, sometimes they are fought even with no good, desirable outcome in sight because there is just no other way. Which brings us right back to point #1.

• The clear sign of insanity is to meet your term of a madman and DO NOTHING but keep trying the same old things that haven't worked once for half a century and continue to tolerate and ignore the matter and hope that somehow, now, this time it works!

Your argument is nonsensical.

No, my argument is sound, it is just that your inferences from it are all entirely off.

 

[TheTechnologist]

This conventional problem alone is why North Korea has not been dealt with in 50 years, and why it won't be dealt with now except by a madman who clearly has no understanding of Strategy, costs, and what the end-game should look like in the first place.[/QUOTE]

• 
  
  
  • Assuming all you said was true (and it's not), you have just made the best case argument against diplomacy as its own means to an end! In other words, had the world tried diplomacy many years ago (as it had) and admitted in the face of intransigence that obviously North Korea was never going to ever see reason and join the civil community, had we just gone in there then, we could have easily ended decades of posturing, stalemates and saved countless billion of dollars and lives!

• 
  
  
  • Breaking the cycle of endless, futile diplomacy for its own sake, which has failed for 50 years in the face now of certain threat, that isn't the sign of a madman, that is the sign of a pragmatist! Perhaps, finally, the ONE sane leader the world over.

• 
  
  
  • Oh and, wars are not fought and won based on costs vs. rewards, sometimes they are fought even with no good, desirable outcome in sight because there is just no other way. Which brings us right back to point #1.

• The clear sign of insanity is to meet your term of a madman and DO NOTHING but keep trying the same old things that haven't worked once for half a century and continue to tolerate and ignore the matter and hope that somehow, now, this time it works!

Your argument is nonsensical.

No, my argument is sound, it is just that your inferences from it are all entirely off.

No, it's not sound. You basically argued that the US should have finished off North Korea "when it had the chance".

Well it tried in 1953 and failed then. What makes you think it'd have succeeded again when the Vietnam War was in full swing 1960s-1970s. Or you think it would have won in the 1980s?

 

[harmonica]

like a lot of members' theories, you also think the US will be like a snowman and just sit there
you think the US doesn't have plans for any and all the aspects you mention?
you think they just sit around reading about WW2 and the Korean war

a huge difference, like PG1 is the US will have air superiority with it's many advantages

 

[TheTechnologist]

like a lot of members' theories, you also think the US will be like a snowman and just sit there
you think the US doesn't have plans for any and all the aspects you mention?
you think they just sit around reading about WW2 and the Korean war

a huge difference, like PG1 is the US will have air superiority with it's many advantages

The KN06 blunts the initial effects of Air superiority. Which is the point I first make. The second point regarding that is that the air superiority really isn't much on the ground when dealing with these Cold war level mass mobilizations. This isn't bombing 30 talibanis in a cave with a MOAB.

 

[Syriusly]

Carrier Aircraft do have a shorter turn around time compared to GUAM which is many many hours. But it's still not a large air-wing in comparison to the forces involved. I've already stated that clearly..

But we wouldn't keep our planes on Guam once the war started- we would base them either in Japan or in South Korea- depending on how effective NK was.

K, that's a more reasonable response than some people, and I just think that Guam is too far to be tactically meaningful, it's a strategic asset, but the US does not have the forces to be aggressive/offensive, in place.

It has the forces enough to be deterrent against North Korea, but it hasn't put the forces it needs in place to win a war, only to ensure time-and-space to escalate one to astronomic costs. Leading to brinksmanship diplomacy.

Guam is a strategic asset, and is threatened by ICBMs.

But it's not an asset that can be used to support much at any given time.

Guam is not actually 'threatened' by ICBMs- despite the warnings of the governor of Guam.

Guam is a useful staging point and of course where we keep planes staged- ready and available to move to Japan or SK or Taiwan as needed.

Again I will say- I think the predictions that the United States could easily win a war with NK are rather stupid- NK is not Iraq. But if we had a reason we could win a war with NK eventually- but I unless NK actually attacks the United States, I don't see that happening- though with Trump.....frankly who knows.

But the idea that NK could easily invade far into SK is also absurd. NK could do lots of damage to SK, and could possibly take Seoul, but beyond that its doubtful it could do more.

I find your position to be as absurdly unbalanced as those who seem to think that a war with NK would be a walk in the park.

Anything within range of an ICBM with a warhead is "threatened". Not sure why you dismiss that.

Also, people forget that the US lost the Iraq war? Iraq is an Iranian client state that needed Iran's help to defeat ISIS which the US couldn't handle.

I am not arguing that North Korea can conquer South Korea, per se.

I argued their theory of victory is "maintaining the status quo". They just need to raise the costs on the US so high that the US cannot utterly "destroy" them.

Sigh.

The United States 'won' the Iraq War- but probably lost the 'peace'

Arguably the only reason why ISIS even existed is because the United States did defeat Iraq.

As far as the cost- I certainly agree that in my opinion- unless NK does something totally stupid- like actually attacking the United States- including Guam- the American people have no interest in the blood sweat and tears it would take to defeat NK- as we don't really have need to.

So in that sense- we won't be defeating NK.

But if NK were stupid enough to attack the United States- then as seen in WW2- yeah we would go in there and defeat the NK military and clean out the NK scummy leadership.

 

[toobfreak]

This conventional problem alone is why North Korea has not been dealt with in 50 years, and why it won't be dealt with now except by a madman who clearly has no understanding of Strategy, costs, and what the end-game should look like in the first place.[/QUOTE]

• 
  
  
  • Assuming all you said was true (and it's not), you have just made the best case argument against diplomacy as its own means to an end! In other words, had the world tried diplomacy many years ago (as it had) and admitted in the face of intransigence that obviously North Korea was never going to ever see reason and join the civil community, had we just gone in there then, we could have easily ended decades of posturing, stalemates and saved countless billion of dollars and lives!

• 
  
  
  • Breaking the cycle of endless, futile diplomacy for its own sake, which has failed for 50 years in the face now of certain threat, that isn't the sign of a madman, that is the sign of a pragmatist! Perhaps, finally, the ONE sane leader the world over.

• 
  
  
  • Oh and, wars are not fought and won based on costs vs. rewards, sometimes they are fought even with no good, desirable outcome in sight because there is just no other way. Which brings us right back to point #1.

• The clear sign of insanity is to meet your term of a madman and DO NOTHING but keep trying the same old things that haven't worked once for half a century and continue to tolerate and ignore the matter and hope that somehow, now, this time it works!

Your argument is nonsensical.

No, my argument is sound, it is just that your inferences from it are all entirely off.

No, it's not sound. You basically argued that the US should have finished off North Korea "when it had the chance".

Where did I ever even remotely argue that? I never argued that. You're an idiot. That's like saying we should have gone in there and finished off Hitler when we had the chance when we saw where he was going but before he finally acted on his threats. No, the sane thing was to wait and wait like we all did, keep talking, hoping, postponing, passing the problem onto others, hope it just somehow went away by itself, had endless meetings and resolutions, shake a lot of hands, have dinners, feel good about ourselves, then fight a global war at the cost of millions of lives and trillions of dollars.

 

[TheTechnologist]

Carrier Aircraft do have a shorter turn around time compared to GUAM which is many many hours. But it's still not a large air-wing in comparison to the forces involved. I've already stated that clearly..

But we wouldn't keep our planes on Guam once the war started- we would base them either in Japan or in South Korea- depending on how effective NK was.

K, that's a more reasonable response than some people, and I just think that Guam is too far to be tactically meaningful, it's a strategic asset, but the US does not have the forces to be aggressive/offensive, in place.

It has the forces enough to be deterrent against North Korea, but it hasn't put the forces it needs in place to win a war, only to ensure time-and-space to escalate one to astronomic costs. Leading to brinksmanship diplomacy.

Guam is a strategic asset, and is threatened by ICBMs.

But it's not an asset that can be used to support much at any given time.

Guam is not actually 'threatened' by ICBMs- despite the warnings of the governor of Guam.

Guam is a useful staging point and of course where we keep planes staged- ready and available to move to Japan or SK or Taiwan as needed.

Again I will say- I think the predictions that the United States could easily win a war with NK are rather stupid- NK is not Iraq. But if we had a reason we could win a war with NK eventually- but I unless NK actually attacks the United States, I don't see that happening- though with Trump.....frankly who knows.

But the idea that NK could easily invade far into SK is also absurd. NK could do lots of damage to SK, and could possibly take Seoul, but beyond that its doubtful it could do more.

I find your position to be as absurdly unbalanced as those who seem to think that a war with NK would be a walk in the park.

Anything within range of an ICBM with a warhead is "threatened". Not sure why you dismiss that.

Also, people forget that the US lost the Iraq war? Iraq is an Iranian client state that needed Iran's help to defeat ISIS which the US couldn't handle.

I am not arguing that North Korea can conquer South Korea, per se.

I argued their theory of victory is "maintaining the status quo". They just need to raise the costs on the US so high that the US cannot utterly "destroy" them.

Sigh.

The United States 'won' the Iraq War- but probably lost the 'peace'

Arguably the only reason why ISIS even existed is because the United States did defeat Iraq.

As far as the cost- I certainly agree that in my opinion- unless NK does something totally stupid- like actually attacking the United States- including Guam- the American people have no interest in the blood sweat and tears it would take to defeat NK- as we don't really have need to.

So in that sense- we won't be defeating NK.

But if NK were stupid enough to attack the United States- then as seen in WW2- yeah we would go in there and defeat the NK military and clean out the NK scummy leadership.

That's a bad way of looking at things. If Clausewitz is correct and war is politics by other means, then "losing the peace" is still "losing the war."

 

[Syriusly]

like a lot of members' theories, you also think the US will be like a snowman and just sit there
you think the US doesn't have plans for any and all the aspects you mention?
you think they just sit around reading about WW2 and the Korean war

a huge difference, like PG1 is the US will have air superiority with it's many advantages

The KN06 blunts the initial effects of Air superiority. Which is the point I first make. The second point regarding that is that the air superiority really isn't much on the ground when dealing with these Cold war level mass mobilizations. This isn't bombing 30 talibanis in a cave with a MOAB.

KN06
Deployment
The system underwent final testing on May 28, 2017 with KCNA reporting that 'glitches' previously identified during testing had been resolved. It said the new system would be mass-produced and deployed across the country.[6][7]

As many as 156 KN-06 launchers could be operational according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies.[8]

wow- as many as 156 launchers eh?

Of a system that has not been battle tested. That is radar directed.

All of which means that radar and KN-06 would be among the initial targets.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

like a lot of members' theories, you also think the US will be like a snowman and just sit there
you think the US doesn't have plans for any and all the aspects you mention?
you think they just sit around reading about WW2 and the Korean war

a huge difference, like PG1 is the US will have air superiority with it's many advantages

The KN06 blunts the initial effects of Air superiority. Which is the point I first make. The second point regarding that is that the air superiority really isn't much on the ground when dealing with these Cold war level mass mobilizations. This isn't bombing 30 talibanis in a cave with a MOAB.

The KN 06 can protect it's own radar from cruise missiles? You know, those things that fly to specific point on earth and blow it up, and cannot be jammed?

 

[TheTechnologist]

like a lot of members' theories, you also think the US will be like a snowman and just sit there
you think the US doesn't have plans for any and all the aspects you mention?
you think they just sit around reading about WW2 and the Korean war

a huge difference, like PG1 is the US will have air superiority with it's many advantages

The KN06 blunts the initial effects of Air superiority. Which is the point I first make. The second point regarding that is that the air superiority really isn't much on the ground when dealing with these Cold war level mass mobilizations. This isn't bombing 30 talibanis in a cave with a MOAB.

The KN 06 can protect it's own radar from cruise missiles? You know, those things that fly to specific point on earth and blow it up, and cannot be jammed?

Pretty sure they'd just redeploy their radar and launchers into their bunkers during an incoming Cruise Missile attack.

The North Koreans have the ability to see those at the opening stages, until other radar sites are first removed, and even then a person in a fishing boat off the coast could report one flying in by radio if they were that dedicated.

 

[TheTechnologist]

like a lot of members' theories, you also think the US will be like a snowman and just sit there
you think the US doesn't have plans for any and all the aspects you mention?
you think they just sit around reading about WW2 and the Korean war

a huge difference, like PG1 is the US will have air superiority with it's many advantages

The KN06 blunts the initial effects of Air superiority. Which is the point I first make. The second point regarding that is that the air superiority really isn't much on the ground when dealing with these Cold war level mass mobilizations. This isn't bombing 30 talibanis in a cave with a MOAB.

KN06
Deployment
The system underwent final testing on May 28, 2017 with KCNA reporting that 'glitches' previously identified during testing had been resolved. It said the new system would be mass-produced and deployed across the country.[6][7]

As many as 156 KN-06 launchers could be operational according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies.[8]

wow- as many as 156 launchers eh?

Of a system that has not been battle tested. That is radar directed.

All of which means that radar and KN-06 would be among the initial targets.

So while planes are trying to hit KN06 because of the threat they present, that's even LESS targets available to air-power at the critical opening stages when a North Korean break through of the DMZ is possible.

If North Koreans are contained in their HARTS on the DMZ, then not a lot will change in the battlespace.

But if they break through, they would wreak havoc on the South Korean side. There's not a lot stopping them from the DMZ to Busan.

 

[Shrimpbox]

They don’t even know if the artillery works because they are too poor to train. Was it Napoleon who said an army marches on its stomach? They have no fuel, no food, no spare parts, no modern equipment and no allies. Rocket man will be the first to go. And once the people of NK realize the gig is up they will throw down their weapons and beg to be captured and fed. A little informational warfare, leaflet warfare, might just cause instant revolution.

Now no way do I want to see 100 of thousands of South Korean or North Koreans killed but creating a straw man about a ground invasion and the potentcy of the North Korean military is absurd and laughable. If you own the airspace you own the conclusion. Poison the fat little turd and be done with it.

 

[TheTechnologist]

They don’t even know if the artillery works because they are too poor to train. Was it Napoleon who said an army marches on its stomach? They have no fuel, no food, no spare parts, no modern equipment and no allies. Rocket man will be the first to go. And once the people of NK realize the gig is up they will throw down their weapons and beg to be captured and fed. A little informational warfare, leaflet warfare, might just cause instant revolution.

Now no way do I want to see 100 of thousands of South Korean or North Koreans killed but creating a straw man about a ground invasion and the potentcy of the North Korean military is absurd and laughable. If you own the airspace you own the conclusion. Poison the fat little turd and be done with it.

You embarrass yourself, Trump and all Americans with your foolish belief in Propaganda.

Their Artillery works!

 

[TheTechnologist]

Also, the US owned the airspace in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq/Afghanistan.

And lost the outcome of ALL of those wars.

 

[Shrimpbox]

Listen rice for brains. You can’t identify a piece of propaganda when you see it. How about checking out the 1980 bronco in the opening or maybe the ultra modern 1950 trucks.

As far as the wars, I would defer to professionals but it was the lack of will in America, not military ability that determined the outcomes. Korea was a draw, Vietnam a loss, and Iraq a win. Why don’t you pull up the highway of hell picture From the Kuwait war and tell me air power in a conventional war is not Supreme.

Highway of Death - Google Search