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

[Godboy]

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

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

Hitting their nuclear sites is hitting first

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

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

That is why it is a standoff

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

Do you think people asked themselves the same question about Hitler back in the World War II?

As it turns out, he was!

Hitler and Kim Jong Un are not the same person. Suicidal leaders are rare, and if Hitler was offered a surrender agreement that involved him staying in power, he would have taken it.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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

Hitting their nuclear sites is hitting first

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

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

That is why it is a standoff

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

Do you think people asked themselves the same question about Hitler back in the World War II?

As it turns out, he was!

Hitler and Kim Jong Un are not the same person. Suicidal leaders are rare, and if Hitler was offered a surrender agreement that involved him staying in power, he would have taken it.

Kim comes from a long line of crazy.

 

[harmonica]

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

Hitting their nuclear sites is hitting first

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

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

That is why it is a standoff

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

Do you think people asked themselves the same question about Hitler back in the World War II?

As it turns out, he was!

Hitler and Kim Jong Un are not the same person. Suicidal leaders are rare, and if Hitler was offered a surrender agreement that involved him staying in power, he would have taken it.

you are quite wrong
as stated before---we destroyed many German and Japanese cities
food supply for Germany was not good
the Russians were fighting ---IN BERLIN !--- and hitler still did not surrender
even AFTER we dropped A-bombs, some Japanese still did not want to surrender
Kyūjō incident - Wikipedia

hitler was not going to surrender--why do you think he and others committed suicide?
Goebbels not only committed suicide--but had his KIDS killed

OF COURSE they won't commit suicide if they get to stay in power

there were and always will be people like hitler!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
do you think god/evolution/whatever makes some humans so evil--the '''most'' evil'''...there will never be someone again like hitler??
--- god/evolution ''created him and said--''no more''???!!!!?? WRONG

Rwanda genocide/Pol Pot--Cambodian genocide/Armenian genocide/Bosnian genocide/Jim Jones/Comet cult suicide/etc etc etc---always was and will be evil people

there are/were always people like hitler--they just don't have the opportunity/circumstances to start major wars::
example--Pol Pot was a lunatic--he had almost everyone leave the cities !!!!!!!!!/etc...then the Cambodian genocide----
but Cambodia did not have the industrialization/numbers/power/military/etc to do the same amount of destruction/genocide...
...and Cambodia was at war with Vietnam---again, Pol Pot --involved in a war, but did not lead to a world war because of the area's ''insignificance''--NOT because Pol Pot was less evil than hitler
---the Germans used trains/gas/...they had the orderliness/discipline/systems/''intelligence''/etc to make war and genocide on a greater level

Rwanda---they murdered more in Rwanda's genocide faster in a smaller amount of time--using machetes sometimes---meaning a greater percentage of the Hutu population had to participate directly in the genocide than Germans in Germany WW2 genocide
6 million 1939--1945 WW2 vs minimum 500,000 3 months in Rwanda

hitler was not and will not be the only evil bastard.....
he probably will be the only one to create so much destruction
humans never change--

 

[rightwinger]

I doubt if our country would tolerate a preemptive strike ....been there, done that

I doubt Kim Jong Un would be stupid enough to hit first

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

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

Hitting their nuclear sites is hitting first

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

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

That is why it is a standoff

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

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

South Korea knows they will pay the price, not Trump

 

[MarathonMike]

What NK is setup for is to very quickly blow the shit out of South Korea with non-nuclear missiles and artillery. There is very little we could do to stop that. But not long after that, NK would look like Aleppo.

 

[harmonica]

What NK is setup for is to very quickly blow the shit out of South Korea with non-nuclear missiles and artillery. There is very little we could do to stop that. But not long after that, NK would look like Aleppo.

conventional arty and missiles can NOT blow the shit out of a country
they can damage a city--at most

It cannot level Seoul as some reports have claimed, but it could do significant damage

--see below quote on limitations

. But the volume of fire that the North can direct against the South Korean capital is limited by some important factors. Of the vast artillery force deployed by the North along the border, only a small portion — Koksan 170-mm self-propelled guns, as well as 240-mm and 300-mm multiple launch rocket systems — are capable of actually reaching Seoul. Broadly speaking, the bulk of Pyongyang's artillery can reach only into the northern border area of South Korea or the northern outskirts of Seoul.

and that is if they are deployed near Seoul....if so, that would mean the rest of the border would not have that arty--arty is the KING of battle [[ not destruction ]] --meaning the rest of NK's border would be just about defenseless

This is an extreme scenario, however, and one in which North Korea chooses to expose all of its most advanced rocket artillery systems simultaneously, suffers no failures, and chooses to direct all of them against Seoul itself

How North Korea Would Retaliate

 

[harmonica]

The artillery would be neutralized quick, and from what I read the flattening of Seoul just isn't possible

Its worse than you probably think. This is a good article about NKs artillery and its threat against Seoul.

North Korea's Simple But Deadly Artillery Holds Seoul And U.S. Hostage

arty will not win wars.....arty firing at civilians/cities doesn't help beat the opposing military forces and does not greatly panic civilians/cause the country to surrender/etc as clearly seen in WW2

German and Japanese cities were demolished---with bombs--which are much, much more powerful than arty and they lived through it....many dead, but arty is much less powerful.....it takes a looooong time and many, many rounds just to demolish one building--unless they are at point blank range aiming for the main structural areas of the building
----arty is not a game winner

and you don't think SK and the US has thought about this?

Their artillery isnt meant to win the war; its meant to deter the US from taking action against NK, and its been working for a long time.

once again, that is not what the arty is for
arty is for destroying and killing enemy TROOPS
arty is NOT a deterrent

Iran and Iraq had Scuds/arty and that didn't stop a war--during that war both sides attacked cities with airpower also
the Arabs had pounded many Israeli villages many times with arty--did not stop MANY wars between them
Israel has/had nukes--did not stop wars
there were MANY rocket attacks from Lebanon--that did not stop Israel from attacking into Lebanon
India and Pakistan had arty--did not stop their war

arty does not deter wars--if it did--there wouldn't have been many wars

You are uninformed. Their artillery is the ONLY thing thats stopping the US from hitting their nuclear facilities. Not their millions of soldiers, not their nukes; just the artillery aimed at Seoul.

see post # 106
conventional arty/missiles cannot even destroy a city
etc

 

[harmonica]

Korean People's Army Ground Force - Wikipedia
this appears to be NK's largest --standard --arty system:
152 mm towed gun-howitzer M1955 (D-20) - Wikipedia
max effective range: ELEVEN miles!!
rocket assisted max range: FOURTEEN miles
please look at a map of Korea

 

[rightwinger]

What NK is setup for is to very quickly blow the shit out of South Korea with non-nuclear missiles and artillery. There is very little we could do to stop that. But not long after that, NK would look like Aleppo.

conventional arty and missiles can NOT blow the shit out of a country
they can damage a city--at most

It cannot level Seoul as some reports have claimed, but it could do significant damage

--see below quote on limitations

. But the volume of fire that the North can direct against the South Korean capital is limited by some important factors. Of the vast artillery force deployed by the North along the border, only a small portion — Koksan 170-mm self-propelled guns, as well as 240-mm and 300-mm multiple launch rocket systems — are capable of actually reaching Seoul. Broadly speaking, the bulk of Pyongyang's artillery can reach only into the northern border area of South Korea or the northern outskirts of Seoul.

and that is if they are deployed near Seoul....if so, that would mean the rest of the border would not have that arty--arty is the KING of battle [[ not destruction ]] --meaning the rest of NK's border would be just about defenseless

This is an extreme scenario, however, and one in which North Korea chooses to expose all of its most advanced rocket artillery systems simultaneously, suffers no failures, and chooses to direct all of them against Seoul itself

How North Korea Would Retaliate

Good point

There is no way they could win ......but can inflict damage

 

[MarathonMike]

What NK is setup for is to very quickly blow the shit out of South Korea with non-nuclear missiles and artillery. There is very little we could do to stop that. But not long after that, NK would look like Aleppo.

conventional arty and missiles can NOT blow the shit out of a country
they can damage a city--at most

It cannot level Seoul as some reports have claimed, but it could do significant damage

--see below quote on limitations

. But the volume of fire that the North can direct against the South Korean capital is limited by some important factors. Of the vast artillery force deployed by the North along the border, only a small portion — Koksan 170-mm self-propelled guns, as well as 240-mm and 300-mm multiple launch rocket systems — are capable of actually reaching Seoul. Broadly speaking, the bulk of Pyongyang's artillery can reach only into the northern border area of South Korea or the northern outskirts of Seoul.

and that is if they are deployed near Seoul....if so, that would mean the rest of the border would not have that arty--arty is the KING of battle [[ not destruction ]] --meaning the rest of NK's border would be just about defenseless

This is an extreme scenario, however, and one in which North Korea chooses to expose all of its most advanced rocket artillery systems simultaneously, suffers no failures, and chooses to direct all of them against Seoul itself

How North Korea Would Retaliate

What NK is setup for is to very quickly blow the shit out of South Korea with non-nuclear missiles and artillery. There is very little we could do to stop that. But not long after that, NK would look like Aleppo.

conventional arty and missiles can NOT blow the shit out of a country
they can damage a city--at most

It cannot level Seoul as some reports have claimed, but it could do significant damage

--see below quote on limitations

. But the volume of fire that the North can direct against the South Korean capital is limited by some important factors. Of the vast artillery force deployed by the North along the border, only a small portion — Koksan 170-mm self-propelled guns, as well as 240-mm and 300-mm multiple launch rocket systems — are capable of actually reaching Seoul. Broadly speaking, the bulk of Pyongyang's artillery can reach only into the northern border area of South Korea or the northern outskirts of Seoul.

and that is if they are deployed near Seoul....if so, that would mean the rest of the border would not have that arty--arty is the KING of battle [[ not destruction ]] --meaning the rest of NK's border would be just about defenseless

This is an extreme scenario, however, and one in which North Korea chooses to expose all of its most advanced rocket artillery systems simultaneously, suffers no failures, and chooses to direct all of them against Seoul itself

How North Korea Would Retaliate

North Korea has an air force too. They can deploy bombs and missiles from the air and would no doubt be pulling out all the stops if it is the end game.

 

[rightwinger]

What NK is setup for is to very quickly blow the shit out of South Korea with non-nuclear missiles and artillery. There is very little we could do to stop that. But not long after that, NK would look like Aleppo.

conventional arty and missiles can NOT blow the shit out of a country
they can damage a city--at most

It cannot level Seoul as some reports have claimed, but it could do significant damage

--see below quote on limitations

. But the volume of fire that the North can direct against the South Korean capital is limited by some important factors. Of the vast artillery force deployed by the North along the border, only a small portion — Koksan 170-mm self-propelled guns, as well as 240-mm and 300-mm multiple launch rocket systems — are capable of actually reaching Seoul. Broadly speaking, the bulk of Pyongyang's artillery can reach only into the northern border area of South Korea or the northern outskirts of Seoul.

and that is if they are deployed near Seoul....if so, that would mean the rest of the border would not have that arty--arty is the KING of battle [[ not destruction ]] --meaning the rest of NK's border would be just about defenseless

This is an extreme scenario, however, and one in which North Korea chooses to expose all of its most advanced rocket artillery systems simultaneously, suffers no failures, and chooses to direct all of them against Seoul itself

How North Korea Would Retaliate

What NK is setup for is to very quickly blow the shit out of South Korea with non-nuclear missiles and artillery. There is very little we could do to stop that. But not long after that, NK would look like Aleppo.

conventional arty and missiles can NOT blow the shit out of a country
they can damage a city--at most

It cannot level Seoul as some reports have claimed, but it could do significant damage

--see below quote on limitations

. But the volume of fire that the North can direct against the South Korean capital is limited by some important factors. Of the vast artillery force deployed by the North along the border, only a small portion — Koksan 170-mm self-propelled guns, as well as 240-mm and 300-mm multiple launch rocket systems — are capable of actually reaching Seoul. Broadly speaking, the bulk of Pyongyang's artillery can reach only into the northern border area of South Korea or the northern outskirts of Seoul.

and that is if they are deployed near Seoul....if so, that would mean the rest of the border would not have that arty--arty is the KING of battle [[ not destruction ]] --meaning the rest of NK's border would be just about defenseless

This is an extreme scenario, however, and one in which North Korea chooses to expose all of its most advanced rocket artillery systems simultaneously, suffers no failures, and chooses to direct all of them against Seoul itself

How North Korea Would Retaliate

North Korea has an air force too. They can deploy bombs and missiles from the air and would no doubt be pulling out all the stops if it is the end game.

Their Air Force would be shot down before it can clear the border

 

[harmonica]

What NK is setup for is to very quickly blow the shit out of South Korea with non-nuclear missiles and artillery. There is very little we could do to stop that. But not long after that, NK would look like Aleppo.

conventional arty and missiles can NOT blow the shit out of a country
they can damage a city--at most

It cannot level Seoul as some reports have claimed, but it could do significant damage

--see below quote on limitations

. But the volume of fire that the North can direct against the South Korean capital is limited by some important factors. Of the vast artillery force deployed by the North along the border, only a small portion — Koksan 170-mm self-propelled guns, as well as 240-mm and 300-mm multiple launch rocket systems — are capable of actually reaching Seoul. Broadly speaking, the bulk of Pyongyang's artillery can reach only into the northern border area of South Korea or the northern outskirts of Seoul.

and that is if they are deployed near Seoul....if so, that would mean the rest of the border would not have that arty--arty is the KING of battle [[ not destruction ]] --meaning the rest of NK's border would be just about defenseless

This is an extreme scenario, however, and one in which North Korea chooses to expose all of its most advanced rocket artillery systems simultaneously, suffers no failures, and chooses to direct all of them against Seoul itself

How North Korea Would Retaliate

What NK is setup for is to very quickly blow the shit out of South Korea with non-nuclear missiles and artillery. There is very little we could do to stop that. But not long after that, NK would look like Aleppo.

conventional arty and missiles can NOT blow the shit out of a country
they can damage a city--at most

It cannot level Seoul as some reports have claimed, but it could do significant damage

--see below quote on limitations

. But the volume of fire that the North can direct against the South Korean capital is limited by some important factors. Of the vast artillery force deployed by the North along the border, only a small portion — Koksan 170-mm self-propelled guns, as well as 240-mm and 300-mm multiple launch rocket systems — are capable of actually reaching Seoul. Broadly speaking, the bulk of Pyongyang's artillery can reach only into the northern border area of South Korea or the northern outskirts of Seoul.

and that is if they are deployed near Seoul....if so, that would mean the rest of the border would not have that arty--arty is the KING of battle [[ not destruction ]] --meaning the rest of NK's border would be just about defenseless

This is an extreme scenario, however, and one in which North Korea chooses to expose all of its most advanced rocket artillery systems simultaneously, suffers no failures, and chooses to direct all of them against Seoul itself

How North Korea Would Retaliate

North Korea has an air force too. They can deploy bombs and missiles from the air and would no doubt be pulling out all the stops if it is the end game.

sure, but so does SK
as stated before--the US and SK will not be snowmen just standing still

a lot of these countries' armed forces are crap:
Iraq--one of the largest with experience in the Iran-Iraq war--- was crap....if you ever read about the air war for that war you can see how crappy the air forces were compared to the US

the Syrian Air Force was completely beaten in not only the Yom Kippur war but also in the 1982 conflict with about 80 Sryian planes planes down to none for Israel
Israel AF really beat the crap out of the Arabs in the Six Day war/etc

the Argentines Air Force did not put a stop to the Brits in the Falklands War

I would not put a lot of faith in the NK air Force

 

[airplanemechanic]

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.

The Vietnam war was lost in Washington, not Vietnam. Name a single battle that was one by the Vietcong. You can't, we won every battle. Their casualties outnumbered ours by multiples. The Vietcong lost about 1.1 million soldiers. We lost 58,000. We KICKED THEIR ASS.

 

[harmonica]

What NK is setup for is to very quickly blow the shit out of South Korea with non-nuclear missiles and artillery. There is very little we could do to stop that. But not long after that, NK would look like Aleppo.

conventional arty and missiles can NOT blow the shit out of a country
they can damage a city--at most

It cannot level Seoul as some reports have claimed, but it could do significant damage

--see below quote on limitations

. But the volume of fire that the North can direct against the South Korean capital is limited by some important factors. Of the vast artillery force deployed by the North along the border, only a small portion — Koksan 170-mm self-propelled guns, as well as 240-mm and 300-mm multiple launch rocket systems — are capable of actually reaching Seoul. Broadly speaking, the bulk of Pyongyang's artillery can reach only into the northern border area of South Korea or the northern outskirts of Seoul.

and that is if they are deployed near Seoul....if so, that would mean the rest of the border would not have that arty--arty is the KING of battle [[ not destruction ]] --meaning the rest of NK's border would be just about defenseless

This is an extreme scenario, however, and one in which North Korea chooses to expose all of its most advanced rocket artillery systems simultaneously, suffers no failures, and chooses to direct all of them against Seoul itself

How North Korea Would Retaliate

What NK is setup for is to very quickly blow the shit out of South Korea with non-nuclear missiles and artillery. There is very little we could do to stop that. But not long after that, NK would look like Aleppo.

conventional arty and missiles can NOT blow the shit out of a country
they can damage a city--at most

It cannot level Seoul as some reports have claimed, but it could do significant damage

--see below quote on limitations

. But the volume of fire that the North can direct against the South Korean capital is limited by some important factors. Of the vast artillery force deployed by the North along the border, only a small portion — Koksan 170-mm self-propelled guns, as well as 240-mm and 300-mm multiple launch rocket systems — are capable of actually reaching Seoul. Broadly speaking, the bulk of Pyongyang's artillery can reach only into the northern border area of South Korea or the northern outskirts of Seoul.

and that is if they are deployed near Seoul....if so, that would mean the rest of the border would not have that arty--arty is the KING of battle [[ not destruction ]] --meaning the rest of NK's border would be just about defenseless

This is an extreme scenario, however, and one in which North Korea chooses to expose all of its most advanced rocket artillery systems simultaneously, suffers no failures, and chooses to direct all of them against Seoul itself

How North Korea Would Retaliate

North Korea has an air force too. They can deploy bombs and missiles from the air and would no doubt be pulling out all the stops if it is the end game.

using air power/air superiority is very complex
the US has AWACS planes which greatly increase the effectiveness of all aspects of an air campaign:
---CAP/CAS/refueling/etc
even with AWACS it takes a lot ot training to become efficient and use it efficiently
I don't think NK has AWACS?..SK does

it takes a lot of money and time to have an effective air force--everything has to work together:
--logistics-refueling/forward observers for CAS/CIC--HQ in picking targets, assigning aircraft, commanding,/etc
once again--conventional bombing and/or arty on cities-non military targets is just about worthless:

The aim of disrupting the morale of the enemy proved impossible though, as the strikes only caused greater support and patriotism in the struck areas

War of the Cities - Wikipedia
if you read anything on the Iran-Iraq Battle of the Cities, you can confirm this
also we saw this in the German bombing of London

the SKs also have AA missiles, along with AA guns and other AA systems
and I think it would be hard to catch SK off guard with what happened in 1950/etc

I really don't see the NK Air Force as a game changer or even adding significantly to a war--it takes a looong time and a lot of sorties to get air superiority/destruction of military assets--as we saw in Operation Deseret Shield
....unless you knockout the other side's Air Force on the 1st day--as in the Six Day war.....even then, they didn't wipe out the entire Arab Air Force
..the Israelis are a proven, elite military force

 

[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.

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.

 

[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.

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.

you don't win with your forces in defense

 

[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.

you don't win with your forces in defense

So? Why not?

 

[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?

 

[harmonica]

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.

you don't win with your forces in defense

So? Why not?

you don't win a conventional war with your forces in defense
this is just plain common military knowledge

 

[Bleipriester]

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.