North Korea: What would a war look like ?

a reply to: gortex

Not necessarily space based
Ever seen independence day when that beam comes out of the bottom of the mothership

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: Timely

I lived there from 1976 to 1979 with my mom and sister. The 8th Army base is huge. Let me see if I can find a Google Map image of it.

Here we go, this is part of the housing area at Youngsan. The red dot is the duplex house I lived in:

Here is a picture of me during the winter of 1976 in the front yard of that house:

But the answer to your question is: Yes, military dependents live in S. Korea even today.

ETA:

Picture of Mr. Song who used to come once a month and shampoo the carpets. I always knew he was there when I'd find all the livingroom furniture outside, heh:

Look at them pleats!!!!! Yeah Mr. Song looking like a BOSS!!!!
Cool pics, very interesting! Thanks for sharing!

a reply to: TheStalkingHorse

"GREATER hegemony" you just died there,bub.
IT may fit THE last "nation building" model since you were SCHOOLED in that regard ,but TRUMP ISN'T A LAWYER OR HILLARY,yet YOU ALL READ him like one (CIVILIANS ARE SILLY) AND THE DOD has lost TOO many troops to keep up that game(IF you're so edukated, YOU know this as well ,it only works for oligarchic hegemony who would treat the whole planet like a republic,I say no,I figure Korea unified with Japanese allies backed by us can keep the MAO boys from runing all HAYWIRE and going all PUTIN with expansionism)they can but try to stabilize current active WAR ZONES,without the rebuild SOFA/BASE game ,we are ISOLATING kiddies and WE are tired of stopping commies and policing,we just HATE the slaughter,just NOT the "cowboy" way now is it?
WE pull the triggers for them.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

You're absolutely correct on one point: that the Brzezinski geostrategy for US global primacy has fallen apart and is not being followed as a doctrine. This goes as far back as 2001 Afghanistan, which Brzezinski himself criticized heavily (along with subsequent actions).

The new chessboard strategy is being carried out by novices in top levels of the US government. Many of these campaigns have failed strategic objectives, and left massive vulnerabilities among many flanks of US primacy.

And it's all predictable to those who understand it. Especially top strategists and advisors for countries like China and Russia, who will gladly exploit such vulnerabilities of cowboy imperialism.

The bottom line is that the USA requires War to sustain itself economically and socially. If it is not successful at both initiating war and sustaining strategic victories, this will create economic consequences for the USA.

That's why the American strategy has now devolved back into advising vassal states and militias/insurgencies so they fight the wars, as to avoid direct involvement and thus direct consequences for the USA. But this also creates a lot of risks, such as the lacklustre effectiveness of these auxiliary legions (like the FSA) to achieve any significant strategic goal for the USA. Not to mention that vassal states want their own independence from US military command, such as what the South Koreans have recently stated.

The only person that should be doing any kind harm to North Korea's goofy leader is Dennis Rodman. He is the perfect person to torture North Korea's precious, (gag,barf), leader.

If conflict occurs, and the U.S. goal is to totally eliminate North Koreas nuclear program, than I do not see any other option for total success than a huge scale ground war, regime change and occupation of North Korea. North Korea possesses too many underground facilities and locations to be able to verify the elimination of the program any other way. It will be a major conflict and will have a high enough casualty potential for the U.S. to consider using nuclear weapons like it did in it's reasoning to use them on Japan in WW 2.

a reply to: Tomcat1970

The official reason why the USA used nukes on Japan was to force a surrender in order to avoid a bloody, high-cost marine invasion.

The real reason was to force a surrender by Japan before the Soviets began their own marine invasion of Japan with the forces that they had amassed in the north, an action that was agreed upon via the Yalta Confederence.

I have little doubt that the Americans would considering nuking North Korea, if they knew they they would be walking into a flashpoint between their coalition and the SCO. And it would still be considered a loss for the USA on all kinds of levels.

a reply to: TheStalkingHorse

I am a former scout with organic brain damage ...and an artist at best now.

a reply to: Tomcat1970

They folded REAL fast last time then China surprised with HUMAN wave assaults,THIS time we are kings of ground/air conventional conflicts,IT isn't going to be a big war,it may be a week.
If China tries us a month.
THEN on to IRAN.

You are talking about the 1950's there. It is 2017. The North Koreans have been fortifying, digging in, and preparing all these years. So has South Korea. This will not be a quick conflict.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: TheStalkingHorse

I am a former scout with organic brain damage ...and an artist at best now.

On that note, I just want to point out one other key factor that you must consider in such a scenario.

21st century standing armies are held together by very controlling bureaucracies. While the USA has been involved in its campaigns since 2001, it has involved hundreds of thousands of its soldiers. And hundreds of thousands of soldiers have come home maimed, not only physically but mentally. I believe the last time I saw a figure on US vet PTSD rates, which was years ago, the numbers were at least 300,000 diagnosed veterans. And this is from post-9/11 wars alone.

If these are declared cases, then you have to understand that they probably are not fit for service and there are probably substantial costs to maintain their healthcare. That means that they must be replaced with rookies. So not only would a major conflict at this point involve a lot of inexperienced American soldiers, but it would vastly add to the post-war costs as well with new casualties.

This concept in and of itself is fairly new for war. You and I both know that wars like WWII, Korea, etc.. had mass casualties but little support after the fact. It was acceptable because people served out of duty. But now it is a contract job that is more trade than duty.

Do you really think you're soldiers are up for a major war against a country like China, located right beside China, in a position where China can keep pulling troops in and out of the battles? Do you really think a US vs China confrontation will be limited to some minor skirmishes? China would not let the US military stomp them in their own zone of control. It could mean social unrest for the Chinese people to think they are so vulnerable. They would seek the opposite.

a reply to: gortex

The following video is about the newest missiles that NK has fielded.. It is well done by a Wall Street journal reporter and is worth a watch.. One interesting thing about the missile is they can be fueled while laying horizontal safely in their caves..
youtu.be...

a reply to: TheStalkingHorse

Since we would n't occupy just subdue ,absolutely.
We are about to make real use of infrastructure weapons.
Communists are centrally led at all times .

Was not sure which NK thread to add this to ...

NK has issued a new threat to Australia.
We have been told to unalign ourselves from the US.
Or face disaster ...

OK that will do it. We will most certainly comply.

🙄

What such war would look like? LIke giant fireballs on the sky of each US mainland city from the west coast to Chicago within 40 minutes!

The EU is actively attempting to drag the US into a global conflict. That said, doesn't mean they can actually achieve it.

a reply to: gortex

Like hell. If this pans out badly.

There are a few World Leaders that might benefit from a few anger management classes.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: TheStalkingHorse

Since we would n't occupy just subdue ,absolutely.
We are about to make real use of infrastructure weapons.
Communists are centrally led at all times .

Wrong. The very definition of communism is a society that has abolished the state apparatus, and thus government only exists on local levels in a decentralized format.

The DPRK is a socialist state. Much like much of the Western world, particularly the USA. The difference between the USA and the DPRK is that everything in the DPRK is under the umbrella of the state regime, whereas in the USA, society is controlled by the state, while corporations monopolize the means of production and dictate the affairs of the state (because they are “too big to fall”). Thus we see examples of left wing socialist fascism and right wing socialist fascism.

a reply to: TheStalkingHorse

Clearly you know little of war and more on politics ...which is not applicable...

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: TheStalkingHorse

Clearly you know little of war and more on politics ...which is not applicable...

War is politics by other means. Perhaps if American military strategists understood politics as well as warfare then they wouldn’t find themselves consumed by quagmire.