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

[Bleipriester]

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

History has numerous examples for the defenders being victorious.

 

[harmonica]

so what's your scenario? NK will try to defeat SK with NK forces staying in tunnels?
NK is not attacking? they stay in the tunnels?
what's going on?

The scenario is the US attacking NK, right?

- Wasting fighting power by going beyond the most secured border in the world is not effective.
- Tunnel systems can be effective against invaders. They cannot provide support for offensive operations abroad.
- However, if NK feels strong enough, they could use an US made war to capture the south anyway.

remember the Maginot Line? --the Germans just out flanked it
the Japanese had massive tunnels on Iwo Jima--loss
the Nam tunnels were not the game changer for NV...the VC did not win the Nam war--the NVA did
you don't win by using defense--every military man knows this

 

[harmonica]

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

History has numerous examples for the defenders being victorious.

post WW1 examples please

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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

See Aleppo.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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

The Israeli military is just an more experienced version of our military since we provide most of their equipment and training of the leadership.

 

[Markle]

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.

Now you know better than to provide FACTS and the whole story to a Progressive!

They get dizzy, disoriented, and then fall down in confusion. Not a pretty sight!

 

[Markle]

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.

Is it really a loss if Los Angeles and San Francisco were to disappear?

 

[Bleipriester]

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

History has numerous examples for the defenders being victorious.

post WW1 examples please

Each battle. The attackers sustained huge casualties in the trench warfare.

 

[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.

remember the Maginot Line? --the Germans just out flanked it
the Japanese had massive tunnels on Iwo Jima--loss
the Nam tunnels were not the game changer for NV...the VC did not win the Nam war--the NVA did
you don't win by using defense--every military man knows this

Look up Vietnam.

 

[Markle]

Cronkite was right

Saved lives

We would have won in Vietnam had the Generals and not the politicians run the war. THAT would have saved lives.

 

[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.

Is it really a loss if Los Angeles and San Francisco were to disappear?

____________

Where would the perverts and mental defects have to go?

 

[Markle]

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.

President Donald Trump has driven ISIS out of all the land it had occupied in the Mid-East. He did it by turning the war over to the Generals and giving our troops a fighting chance by changing the Rules of Engagement.

Something petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama's press office refused to do.

 

[Markle]

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.

Is it really a loss if Los Angeles and San Francisco were to disappear?

____________

Where would the perverts and mental defects have to go?

Point taken!

 

[Markle]

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

April 30, 1945, Adolph Hitler, and Eva Braun, his then-wife, committed suicide after Hitler killed his beloved dog Blondie. After which, Hitler and Eva were immediately burned.

May 7, 1945, Alfred Jodl signed the Unconditional Surrender of all German forces, East and West, at Reims, in northwestern France.

Japan presented a huge problem since they had proven time and again that they would fight to the death and would commit suicide rather than be captured. As the Allies took islands back from Japan thousands of civilians committed suicide. Women would kill their children before committing suicide.

Japan refused to surrender after the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. The Emporer himself broke the tie among his ministers and the unconditional surrender was signed on September 2, 1945. It was announced August 15, 1945. The bomb on Nagasaki was dropped on August 9, 1945, three days after the one on Hiroshima. Those two bombs saved millions of lives.

Unknown to Japan, we had no more atomic bombs and it would take another six months or more to build more.

 

[harmonica]

so what's your scenario? NK will try to defeat SK with NK forces staying in tunnels?
NK is not attacking? they stay in the tunnels?
what's going on?

The scenario is the US attacking NK, right?

- Wasting fighting power by going beyond the most secured border in the world is not effective.
- Tunnel systems can be effective against invaders. They cannot provide support for offensive operations abroad.
- However, if NK feels strong enough, they could use an US made war to capture the south anyway.

remember the Maginot Line? --the Germans just out flanked it
the Japanese had massive tunnels on Iwo Jima--loss
the Nam tunnels were not the game changer for NV...the VC did not win the Nam war--the NVA did
you don't win by using defense--every military man knows this

Look up Vietnam.

what?? the NVA did not sweep into Saigon??!!!! what the heck are you talking about?? the NVA ATTACKED into SV
???!!

 

[Picaro]

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.

the rest of the world has been telling us, and themselves, all about how we can never win wars, yet here we are, after winning two world wars, numerous small actions, and re the so-called 'defeats' in Korea, Stalin ran away almost immediately, and Mao learned he never wanted to face the U.S. directly again, and the Red Chinese never will, and the Soviets went bankrupt 'winning' in Viet Nam, and spent the 1970's as just another welfare case for the West to feed, and having to even import refined petroleum products from the West despite having massive oil and gas fields. We were going to get our asses kicked by Saddam, too; he's dead, we aren't, and so on.

 

[HenryBHough]

Not implausible that North Korea could win a war with America. A war with an America under the thumb of a Democrat president armed with no weapons - only a defeatist Democrat majority in House and Senate.

 

[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.

remember the Maginot Line? --the Germans just out flanked it
the Japanese had massive tunnels on Iwo Jima--loss
the Nam tunnels were not the game changer for NV...the VC did not win the Nam war--the NVA did
you don't win by using defense--every military man knows this

Look up Vietnam.

what?? the NVA did not sweep into Saigon??!!!! what the heck are you talking about?? the NVA ATTACKED into SV
???!!
View attachment 159976

So you arguing with the logic that you won´t capture anything if you don´t attack?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

remember the Maginot Line? --the Germans just out flanked it
the Japanese had massive tunnels on Iwo Jima--loss
the Nam tunnels were not the game changer for NV...the VC did not win the Nam war--the NVA did
you don't win by using defense--every military man knows this

Look up Vietnam.

what?? the NVA did not sweep into Saigon??!!!! what the heck are you talking about?? the NVA ATTACKED into SV
???!!
View attachment 159976

What is the date of that photo?

 

[dannyboys]

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.

remember the Maginot Line? --the Germans just out flanked it
the Japanese had massive tunnels on Iwo Jima--loss
the Nam tunnels were not the game changer for NV...the VC did not win the Nam war--the NVA did
you don't win by using defense--every military man knows this

Look up Vietnam.

what?? the NVA did not sweep into Saigon??!!!! what the heck are you talking about?? the NVA ATTACKED into SV
???!!
View attachment 159976

What is the date of that photo?

Why do you ask?
The DRV, the NV's brother in arms were everywhere throughout Saigon.
The US was fighting an insurgent battle they could never win.
The US could have nuked all of NV and they still wouldn't eventually have won.
Oh the sweet irony!
What has eventually defeated communism in NV was good old capitalism!
Same as what is happening throughout China.
Capitalism is what's eventually going to defeat the Pervert in NK.