It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Will North Korea become another Stalingrad?

page: 3
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

NBC weapons would be non conventional and... probably not a good look. Getting rid of Kim and the leadership group may be the best strategy, then letting the whole country know they are gone might end the whole thing.
I bet Kim is paranoid as hell and he should be. Probably got all kinds of secret bunkers.




posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: JimTSpock

I agree and they probably will decapitate on this one FAST.



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: makemap

WE have a bunch of options to specifically perform a surgical decapitation here.
I STILL can't really tell what the North Korean People will do .
I do think China MIGHT try something if they fall,it WILL not work (After all the time in ceasefire its beyond old)



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 03:18 PM
link   
The only way Pyongyang became a Stalingrad is if China declared war on the United States after the Second Korean War kicked off and the city became a battleground. Not the likeliest of scenarios IMO.



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: starwarsisreal

Not going to happen any more than we would let China occupy Mexico.



Well they failed to run us out of the South and destroy South Korea.



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Here is what there military looks like compared to ours armedforces.eu...



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: 00018GE

Comparisons like this lack the context that the US forces are stretched globewide including much of the support force structure supporting combat forces already engaged in other theaters. What the US could actually bring to bear in a timely manner against NK is a lot different puzzle than a comparison of total numbers.
Could we wrap up NK in weeks? Sure, with the help of ROK forces, we could be done pretty quickly if we had the will to do the ugly things necessary. I see no reason to believe we are prepared to do that (nor am I entirely convinced it would be worth it). Which means an ultimately nastier, longer campaign which requires a massivel logostical timeline beforehand. Because no matter how many planes, ships, tanks, troops, bombs, missiles, fuel, etc you have, it doesn't mean much if they aren't there.
So I'd suspect you'll get plenty of quiet sigals before the balloon goes up if the US strikes first.



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 08:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

And we failed to drive them out of North Korea.

Did you notice that?


The word is stalemate.

edit on 9/24/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 08:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: makemap
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

No man. China doesn't want US bases near Chinese border in which the SK will probably invite since their never ending naval exercise just like the Philippines.


Ultimately, I think China would unenthusiastically accept terms that limited the US presence on the peninsula below the 38th parallel. Especially if the ROK forces take the ground quickly and present them with a fait accompli.
Trade with ROK is bound to be more profitable than propping up Kim, even if that's not their preferred route. I don't think their preference extends to directly trading blows. Surreptitious support of NK, even in an armed conflict? Sure. Direct engagement to "liberate" NK from ROK/US forces? No.



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 08:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Logarock

And we failed to drive them out of North Korea.

Did you notice that?


The word is stalemate.

Because we didn't have the will to do it. We could have. I'm not sure that will exists here, either. We'd likely see a protracted campaign in Korea, with China giving just enough material assistance to North Korea to keep them engaged until our will evaporates.



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert




Because we didn't have the will to do it. We could have.

Sure. We could have nuked 'em.
Prolly shoulda. Right?

Prolly should. Right?

edit on 9/24/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

No, I probably wouldn't make that choice now or then. But it doesn't mean it wouldn't have worked. I also think you could have beaten them back into China without special weapons, but we didn't have the will for that ugliness either, and it would have been very ugly.
I don't think we should send good men and women to die in action if we aren't fully committed to doing the job quickly and wholeheartedly. It would make our decisions to engage in combat pretty limited in scope under President Robert.
Right now I think we could take North Korea without resorting to nuclear weapons. It would be decidedly costly and risky and extremely unpopular domestically and internationally, and I really don't have the information I'd need to say whether it would be warranted in my opinion.

Sorry to disappoint you.



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 08:50 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

Not to mention that Seoul wouldn't stand a chance.
Meh.

edit on 9/24/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 08:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I'm not sure that's a given. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's not, but it'd definitely be a possibility. Those are Grade A questions to ask yourself beforehand, yes.



posted on Sep, 25 2017 @ 12:33 AM
link   
No...simple answer




top topics



 
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join