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

[basquebromance]

lock this unpatriotic person up!

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

 

[rightwinger]

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

But we may not like the casualties

 

[Asclepias]

When I was over there I was told we were nothing but a speed bump that N. Korea would hit on the way to Seoul. The ROK soilders are probably way better equipped to handle war with the north than we are.

 

[Bleipriester]

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.

 

[rightwinger]

When I was over there I was told we were nothing but a speed bump that N. Korea would hit on the way to Seoul. The ROK soilders are probably way better equipped to handle war with the north than we are.

They could mount an initial attack
But they lack the logistics to maintain an invasion. We would cut off their limited supples and they would quickly run out of fuel, food and ammunition

 

[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 = $$$$$$

 

[August West]

lock this unpatriotic person up!

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

So what? We`ve lost wars before. It`s the defense contractors that never lose.

 

[The Professor]

The Newsweek article headline was misleading. According to the link provided, here is what was said by Lt. Gen. Jan-Marc Jouas, the former deputy commander of U.S. Forces in Korea:

“If a conflict between North Korea and the United States suddenly broke out, U.S. Troops in South Korea would be "outnumbered" and undersupplied, warn Lt. Gen. Jan-Marc Jouas, the former deputy commander of U.S. Forces in Korea.

"The 28,500 U.S. Armed Forces personnel in South Korea are vastly outnumbered by North Korean forces, as well as [South Korean] forces that will conduct the overwhelming majority of the fighting. Unlike every conflict since the last Korean War, we will not be able to build up our forces prior to the start of hostilities”

His comments did not address the full military advantages/disadvantages of both sides of the conflict but only concerned the ground troops already in Korea. The United States has an arsenal the likes of which North Korea has never seen. No sane person would ever believe that North Korea could win a war with the U.S. The Newsweek reporter who concocted that headline is engaging in pure sensationalism. He probably had previous employment with The National Enquirer.

 

[Weatherman2020]

"The 28,500 U.S. Armed Forces personnel in South Korea are vastly outnumbered by North Korean forces, as well as [South Korean] forces that will conduct the overwhelming majority of the fighting. Unlike every conflict since the last Korean War, we will not be able to build up our forces prior to the start of hostilities," Jouas wrote in a November 7 letter obtained by Newsweek to several Democratic members of Congress. It's estimated North Korea has roughly 1.2 million troops.

The idiot thinks the entire war would be fought using the troops stationed there. Just shows that the Pentagon has idiots the moronic MSM loves to use.

 

[Weatherman2020]

 

[harmonica]

the article states the US/SKs would be'' outnumbered and under supplied'' ....would take ''days to months to reinforce''
possible:
--does anyone know the history of the Korean War?? what he describes is comparable to how the Korean War unfolded

the NKs attacked in June with overwhelming forces against some very poor US units
they came very, very close to overrunning SK. the NKs got down all the way to Pusan--but the USMC helped stop the NKs---until in September Mac landed the USMC at Inchon

but SK now has airpower and that would have to be eliminated, as well as any US carrier air before the NKs could take over all of SK

the US has B52s [ with smart and conventional bombs ] and as we saw in Afghanistan, they can put a big hurt on ''small'' forces--so a big NK force would be hit just as hard, if not more

the B52s/air [ and the US tank force ] put a big hurt on one of the largest and ''experienced forces in the world==-Iraqi

one major aspect is how well the NKs are trained in not only combat--but also combined arms and logistics...?
the Iraqis were really crap compared to the US/Brits/etc

 

[Weatherman2020]

the article states the US/SKs would be'' outnumbered and under supplied'' ....would take ''days to months to reinforce''
possible:
--does anyone know the history of the Korean War?? what he describes is comparable to how the Korean War unfolded

the NKs attacked in June with overwhelming forces against some very poor US units
they came very, very close to overrunning SK. the NKs got down all the way to Pusan--but the USMC helped stop the NKs---until in September Mac landed the USMC at Inchon

but SK now has airpower and that would have to be eliminated, as well as any US carrier air before the NKs could take over all of SK

the US has B52s [ with smart and conventional bombs ] and as we saw in Afghanistan, they can put a big hurt on ''small'' forces--so a big NK force would be hit just as hard, if not more

the B52s/air [ and the US tank force ] put a big hurt on one of the largest and ''experienced forces in the world==-Iraqi

one major aspect is how well the NKs are trained in not only combat--but also combined arms and logistics...?
the Iraqis were really crap compared to the US/Brits/etc

Exactly. Forces were pushed back to a tiny sliver of real estate. Then we pushed them back but the cowards in DC did not want to fight back against China.

 

[harmonica]

and larger forces more easily located and more easily hurt as you can hit not only the combat force--but the more vulnerable logistical forces...you hit the logistics--the combat forces get no ammo, food, gas
where as in Afghanistan the ''small'' forces did not have a ''large'' logistical tail

 

[Harry Dresden]

lock this unpatriotic person up!

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

your title says will lose....the article says could lose....spin doctor are you?....

 

[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-******* believable.

 

[dannyboys]

One MOAB dropped on the pervert's head will destroy the NK C&C. The US can incapacitate all the NK's internet between the 'Generals' and the Pervert within minutes.
The Pervert is about to face a 'Six Day War' that will last more like six hours.

 

[rightwinger]

the article states the US/SKs would be'' outnumbered and under supplied'' ....would take ''days to months to reinforce''
possible:
--does anyone know the history of the Korean War?? what he describes is comparable to how the Korean War unfolded

the NKs attacked in June with overwhelming forces against some very poor US units
they came very, very close to overrunning SK. the NKs got down all the way to Pusan--but the USMC helped stop the NKs---until in September Mac landed the USMC at Inchon

but SK now has airpower and that would have to be eliminated, as well as any US carrier air before the NKs could take over all of SK

the US has B52s [ with smart and conventional bombs ] and as we saw in Afghanistan, they can put a big hurt on ''small'' forces--so a big NK force would be hit just as hard, if not more

the B52s/air [ and the US tank force ] put a big hurt on one of the largest and ''experienced forces in the world==-Iraqi

one major aspect is how well the NKs are trained in not only combat--but also combined arms and logistics...?
the Iraqis were really crap compared to the US/Brits/etc

Exactly. Forces were pushed back to a tiny sliver of real estate. Then we pushed them back but the cowards in DC did not want to fight back against China.

Wise choice not to fight China

 

[Bleipriester]

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.

 

[MACAULAY]

Newsweek, like all liberal propaganda outlets, would have loved Neville Chamberlain. Never fight a war today which you can put off for your kids, even though by putting it off, your enemy gets stronger.

Under Obama, you almost had to be a ***** to move up in the Pentagon Hierarchy. This dude in Newsweek sounds like one of Obama's ***** Generals who has given his opinion for a ***** Democrat Rag at the request of a bunch of ***** Democrats in Congress.

Dealing with North Korea after they have a nuclear weapon on a deliverable ballistic missile was NOT addressed.

It seems that the War on the ground would be the same, except if the US bombed N. Korea back into the stone ages, like we could do now; instead, it might cost us Los Angeles or San Francisco.

This ***** General didn't bother to say what would happen if we let the Fat Goofy **** have a nuclear weapon and a ballistic missile to deliver it on.

My guess is that we cede South Korea soon; all of Asia in a few years; and the next generation will have to give up Hawaii.

We've tried Isolation. Tried it hard. Tried it two times last century. And, it seems that with two huge oceans to protect us; it ought to work---but it hasn't worked so far.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

lock this unpatriotic person up!

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

Never trust a Chair Force general to know anything about warfare.