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

[EvilCat Breath]

The liberal alliance with North Korea might well provide enough support to cause us to lose a conflict. After all, it was the left that caused our loss in Vietnam. They could well repeat their success with North Korea.

 

[blastoff]

The liberal alliance with North Korea might well provide enough support to cause us to lose a conflict. After all, it was the left that caused our loss in Vietnam. They could well repeat their success with North Korea.

Yep, the lefty jerks believed the bullshit comrade Cronkite fed them about getting our asses kicked during Tet meant it was over, an unwinable war.
Except the opposition generals thought they had lost the war because we so thoroughly kicked their asses during Tet.

 

[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

 

[rightwinger]

The liberal alliance with North Korea might well provide enough support to cause us to lose a conflict. After all, it was the left that caused our loss in Vietnam. They could well repeat their success with North Korea.

Yep, the lefty jerks believed the bullshit comrade Cronkite fed them about getting our asses kicked during Tet meant it was over, an unwinable war.
Except the opposition generals thought they had lost the war because we so thoroughly kicked their asses during Tet.

Cronkite was right

Saved lives

 

[harmonica]

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.

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

 

[harmonica]

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.

we didn't win in Vietnam--that's a different subject, but it was almost impossible to win
actually we kept NK from over running SK--so a US '''win'''
SK didn't get over run--a SK win
China kept NK from being over run--a China ''win''
NK wanted to over run SK-- an NK ''loss''

there was very good intelligence/information that China was not going to stand for the UN to go into NK
Mac totally ignored all the evidence/common sense and went there anyway

 

[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.

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

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

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

If there are nukes in play, that's a completely different ball game and one your general didn't elaborate on.

 

[monkrules]

Lose a war with Korea? Who cares.

We LOVE war. What’s another trillion dollars wasted on fireworks and the latest technological gadgets of war? What’s another million lives shot to hell? It’s what we do...

Sixteen years in Afghanistan and we’re still going strong. Bring it on. Just put it on our tab.

Besides, it’ll give trump a reason to walk around all puffed up, talking tough, and acting as if he has something, besides lint, in his pants.

 

[harmonica]

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.

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

 

[harmonica]

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.

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

says ''it's possible US would lose''
you didn't read my post--did you?

it's possible to lose any war--as we see in Vietnam
Iraq over ran Kuwait and it took a lot of time for US forces to get over there
you simplify the complicated subject
your mind must be simple

if this happens and that...etc

you appear to know 0 about history
we just about destroyed Germany and Japan by conventional bombing/blockade and they STILL did not surrender
a lot of Japanese did not want to surrender AFTER the A bombs

NK will be destroyed before the US

 

[rightwinger]

U.S. can't lose, we can only take casualties

N Korea can't win. An invasion would lead to their devastation
Obsolete equipment, poor training, no air power, no logistics, no money to keep a war going

 

[Correll]

"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.

And seems to dismiss the South Korean troops for some reason.

 

[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.

And seems to dismiss the South Korean troops for some reason.

And the B-1 and B-2 bombers stationed in Guam, three carrier fleets off the coast and who knows how many missile subs off the coast. Probably 100 nukes could be used within the first hour if push came to shove.

 

[Correll]

"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.

And seems to dismiss the South Korean troops for some reason.

And the B-1 and B-2 bombers stationed in Guam, three carrier fleets off the coast and who knows how many missile subs off the coast. Probably 100 nukes could be used within the first hour if push came to shove.

The South Koreans alone should be able to handle the poorly equipped masses of the North KOreans.


Are troops are stationed there to show that we are willing to fight CHINA, if it comes to that.

 

[rightwinger]

"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.

And seems to dismiss the South Korean troops for some reason.

And the B-1 and B-2 bombers stationed in Guam, three carrier fleets off the coast and who knows how many missile subs off the coast. Probably 100 nukes could be used within the first hour if push came to shove.

We could defeat them without resorting to nukes

 

[Correll]

"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.

And seems to dismiss the South Korean troops for some reason.

And the B-1 and B-2 bombers stationed in Guam, three carrier fleets off the coast and who knows how many missile subs off the coast. Probably 100 nukes could be used within the first hour if push came to shove.

We could defeat them without resorting to nukes

And kudos to Bill Clinton for sabotaging the International Mine Ban Treaty.


Best thing he ever did. And I LOVED his rational for it.

Those old soviet tanks, if they manage to not be destroyed on the approach, will be sitting ducks with their treads blown off.

 

[rightwinger]

"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.

And seems to dismiss the South Korean troops for some reason.

And the B-1 and B-2 bombers stationed in Guam, three carrier fleets off the coast and who knows how many missile subs off the coast. Probably 100 nukes could be used within the first hour if push came to shove.

The South Koreans alone should be able to handle the poorly equipped masses of the North KOreans.


Are troops are stationed there to show that we are willing to fight CHINA, if it comes to that.

While the numbers may be close, South Korea is vastly superior in their modern equipment, training, air power and quality of their forces

Kim Jong Un is counting on his ability to give them a bloody nose as a deterrent to fighting

 

[rightwinger]

"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.

And seems to dismiss the South Korean troops for some reason.

And the B-1 and B-2 bombers stationed in Guam, three carrier fleets off the coast and who knows how many missile subs off the coast. Probably 100 nukes could be used within the first hour if push came to shove.

We could defeat them without resorting to nukes

And kudos to Bill Clinton for sabotaging the International Mine Ban Treaty.


Best thing he ever did. And I LOVED his rational for it.

Those old soviet tanks, if they manage to not be destroyed on the approach, will be sitting ducks with their treads blown off.

Targets

 

[Correll]

"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.

And seems to dismiss the South Korean troops for some reason.

And the B-1 and B-2 bombers stationed in Guam, three carrier fleets off the coast and who knows how many missile subs off the coast. Probably 100 nukes could be used within the first hour if push came to shove.

The South Koreans alone should be able to handle the poorly equipped masses of the North KOreans.


Are troops are stationed there to show that we are willing to fight CHINA, if it comes to that.

While the numbers may be close, South Korea is vastly superior in their modern equipment, training, air power and quality of their forces

Kim Jong Un is counting on his ability to give them a bloody nose as a deterrent to fighting

Primarily by the threat of his artillery to Seoul.


The South Koreans were stupid to not have moved their capital.