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.

 

Bush's Next War - North Korea: A War Scenario

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 01:42 PM
link   
The relationship between N. Korea and China isn't all that warm and fuzzy either, I can think of a few times in the last 10 years that the North has massed troops on their Northern border with China for what ever reasons that served Kim.




posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Oh guys... i cannot believe the ignorance of some people here in this forum. And again, in this topic, LiquidationOfDiscrepancy is the only person who thinks rationally and NOT like a child.

I don't want to waste my time, argumenting with facts, CNN and FOX aren't telling You, so, the only thing i can say related to this topic is like LiquidationOfDiscrepancy said - dont underestimate NK.

The Bulgarian Government was working along with NK on several projects during the cold war, and i had the access to some class. documents through the position of my father here in Bulgaria. But even if You google a little bit on independent sites, You will find more than You expect about the real military situation in NK and the US.

About the technologie, discussed most in this topic, as we all know Russia and China are selling military technologie secretly to Iran, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, India etc, in this case, we have to remind that NK is also an buyer. Thats a fact, Russia and China can't just sitting in a chair while the US is empire the earth. So, both countrys wouldn't support NK officially, but secretly they're doing it, and they will do it of course in future (maybe You have to read the topic "americas newest enemy" i've post to understand WHY)

LiquidationOfDiscrepancy, You forgot to say that NK have "Sunburn" and even "Onyx" missiles (SS-N-22 & SS-N-25),

"... SS-N-25 [and now SS-N-26] "Onyx", a devastating and completely unstoppable Mach 2.9 ramjet anti-ship cruise missile which skims the waves at twenty feet, before delivering a knock out blow to its maritime target more than 200 kilometers away..."







So relating to these two missiles, the US gov was trying 1995 to buy some SS-N-22, but Russia denied. There is NO defense against this missiles, so IF US-SK-JP forces are trying to invade NK, it would be an nightmare.

more about the missiles...



Greets from Bulgaria

Georgi


[edit: addet some links/picture]


[edit on 2-4-2005 by bulgarian]



posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by bulgarian
Oh guys... i cannot believe the ignorance of some people here in this forum. And again, in this topic, LiquidationOfDiscrepancy is the only person who thinks rationally and NOT like a child.

I don't want to waste my time, argumenting with facts, CNN and FOX aren't telling You, so, the only thing i can say related to this topic is like LiquidationOfDiscrepancy said - dont underestimate NK.


Let me see if I've got this right Bulgarian: Liquid and I just had a nice detailed exchange revolving around facts, figures, and principles demonstrated in military history, then you come in calling most of us (including me) children right before saying "I don't want to waste my time argumenting with facts".
Take a long buddy.


The Bulgarian Government was working along with NK on several projects during the cold war, and i had the access to some class. documents through the position of my father here in Bulgaria. But even if You google a little bit on independent sites, You will find more than You expect about the real military situation in NK and the US.


How convenient. You assure us that if we had good sources we'd find something other than what research has shown so far, but you don't bother actually showing us these good sources or giving us the details. It's nice that Bulgaria and North Korea were working together 15+ years ago, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Are you saying that Bulgaria has secrets that would result in the defeat of the USA? I mean hey, if you got it then you got it and good for you, but if you're going to say that then say it and spare me the inuendo.


About the technologie, discussed most in this topic, as we all know Russia and China are selling military technologie secretly to Iran, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, India etc, in this case, we have to remind that NK is also an buyer.

They aren't selling it to Iraq anymore. We walked right over that technology (spelled with a "y") and kicked Iraq's teeth in.


Thats a fact, Russia and China can't just sitting in a chair while the US is empire the earth. So, both countrys wouldn't support NK officially, but secretly they're doing it, and they will do it of course in future (maybe You have to read the topic "americas newest enemy" i've post to understand WHY)

China wants to contain American, not destroy us. If America goes down, China goes down, and if America and China go down, everyone goes down. Our economies are interdependent. It is only reasonable to expect that China will not seek to start or worsen a Korean war. As I said earlier, they may very well take our side and insist on fighting North Korea themselves if North Korea goes overboard. Let's not forget the pride of the Chinese people- for North Korea to defiantly jeopardize Chinese interests by starting a large war on their border would be a slap in the face and would demand retribution.


LiquidationOfDiscrepancy, You forgot to say that NK have "Sunburn" and even "Onyx" missiles (SS-N-22 & SS-N-25),

Please present evidence of this. Niether Global Security nor any google result turned up anything on this. I searched Janes and although I'm not a paying member and thus could not access the reports I could clearly see from the titles that all of the results dealt with Chinese possession of SS-N-22s- not were about North Korea.
Furthermore please note that the Moskit has only 120km range and at this time does not exist in an air-delievered version. American ships must come within 120km of North Korean missile emplacements, or must allow North Korean vessels to approach within 120km, in order for this weapon to be employed. These are dangerous in the hands of Iran because they control the Strait of Hormuz. North Korea controls no such "pinch point" and would not necessarily be able to make any significant use of these weapons.


"... SS-N-25 [and now SS-N-26] "Onyx", a devastating and completely unstoppable Mach 2.9 ramjet anti-ship cruise missile which skims the waves at twenty feet, before delivering a knock out blow to its maritime target more than 200 kilometers away..."

In all fairness it's not completely unstoppable. It's extremely hard to stop. Phalanx does have a thin chance against these weapons and just a few kilometers more range to the radar (potentially provided by AWACS) would give Phalanx several additional seconds and likely result in success.
That being said, Moskit remains a very credible threat- just not a fool proof one. What is it that you were saying a few sentences ago? Oh yes, "Don't underestimate.".

Come back when you've got FACTS. I questioned the accuracy of some of liquid's facts, but I respected him for bringing them. You have not done much to earn my respect so far. Your post smacks of blind nationalism.



posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 03:15 PM
link   
NK does not have the world largest submarine fleet, i dont who does But i think US and china and UK are competing for the largest sub fleet, I think all of the people in NK say they support Kim but i think as soon as he fell from power people would be happy, NK is almost in worse position then Iraq was, the only difference was the Saddam killed his own people,

If US invaded NK, NKs Navy would very quickly get demolished and NK does have some Good fighter Jets But saddam fighter pilots had more training hours then NK pilots do, and NK would never ever make it accross the Pacific to invade the US coast, NK does not have the Military might or the Money or the means to transfer enough stuff to the US

And if NK Nuked LA "IF he has a nuke that can reach that far, i believe he could hit alaska but LA im not sure he could hit" anyways If NK nuked Any part of the US, BYE, BYE, NK US would Either Drop Nuke on NK or do massive bombing runs using B2,B52,F-117,B1B lancers,

and then im sure China would feel really crappy about not stepping up and doing there part, It is in NK and China Best interest that a NK nuclear missile never ever ever ever ever ever Lands on US soil.



posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 04:33 PM
link   


Let me see if I've got this right Bulgarian: Liquid and I just had a nice detailed exchange revolving around facts, figures, and principles demonstrated in military history, then you come in calling most of us (including me) children right before saying "I don't want to waste my time argumenting with facts".
Take a long buddy.


Sorry, You missunderstood me. I have in mind users like "Ikema", "American Mad Man" and others, because of their posts in this, AND in other topics




How convenient. You assure us that if we had good sources we'd find something other than what research has shown so far, but you don't bother actually showing us these good sources or giving us the details. It's nice that Bulgaria and North Korea were working together 15+ years ago, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Are you saying that Bulgaria has secrets that would result in the defeat of the USA? I mean hey, if you got it then you got it and good for you, but if you're going to say that then say it and spare me the inuendo.


No, of course, Bulgaria's influance and military strengh is nothing compared with tha aivabilities of the US, China etc. You missunderstood me again. It was about information, that is availible for all official or "silent" "allies" of NK (Bulgaria is officially an ally of the US). That information has nothing to do with Bulgaria, but is availible for the bulgarian government.



They aren't selling it to Iraq anymore. We walked right over that technology (spelled with a "y") and kicked Iraq's teeth in.

There is a big difference between the technology in Iraq and Iran. Both have (had) russian technology, but of course that of Iraq was a little bit older. Just one question, do You think that the russian government is supporting the Iraq also today with weapons? I think yes.




China wants to contain American, not destroy us. If America goes down, China goes down, and if America and China go down, everyone goes down. Our economies are interdependent. It is only reasonable to expect that China will not seek to start or worsen a Korean war. As I said earlier, they may very well take our side and insist on fighting North Korea themselves if North Korea goes overboard. Let's not forget the pride of the Chinese people- for North Korea to defiantly jeopardize Chinese interests by starting a large war on their border would be a slap in the face and would demand retribution.


I wasnt saying that China has an interest to destroy the US. I was just saying that there is a silent conflict between the super-powers, and China supports and has to support anti-us related things in order to balance the situation! The US is empiring the whole middle east, China and Russia cannot tolerate and extension to NK.



Please present evidence of this. Niether Global Security nor any google result turned up anything on this. I searched Janes and although I'm not a paying member and thus could not access the reports I could clearly see from the titles that all of the results dealt with Chinese possession of SS-N-22s- not were about North Korea.
Furthermore please note that the Moskit has only 120km range and at this time does not exist in an air-delievered version. American ships must come within 120km of North Korean missile emplacements, or must allow North Korean vessels to approach within 120km, in order for this weapon to be employed. These are dangerous in the hands of Iran because they control the Strait of Hormuz. North Korea controls no such "pinch point" and would not necessarily be able to make any significant use of these weapons.


I give You some facts in about 24 hours at your U2U



In all fairness it's not completely unstoppable. It's extremely hard to stop. Phalanx does have a thin chance against these weapons and just a few kilometers more range to the radar (potentially provided by AWACS) would give Phalanx several additional seconds and likely result in success.
That being said, Moskit remains a very credible threat- just not a fool proof one. What is it that you were saying a few sentences ago? Oh yes, "Don't underestimate.".

Come back when you've got FACTS. I questioned the accuracy of some of liquid's facts, but I respected him for bringing them. You have not done much to earn my respect so far. Your post smacks of blind nationalism.


Iam not trying to earns anyone respect. Iam not flaming anyone. Maybe i don't write in perfekt english, maybe some people are not on my opinion, but thats no reason to call me an "blind nationalist". Thanks...



posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bulgarian
Sorry, You misunderstood me. I have in mind users like "Ikema", "American Mad Man" and others, because of their posts in this, AND in other topics


In that case I owe you a sincere apology for my riposte.




Just one question, do You think that the Russian government is supporting the Iraq also today with weapons? I think yes.


I tend to doubt that mainly because of the quality of the weapons we're seeing turn up in Iraq. I respect Russia enough to believe that things in Iraq would be much more difficult if Russia was actively helping insurgents. If Russia were to sneak a good quantity of BM-13s to the insurgents we would be suffering many more casualties and would need more troops to lock down the country. (Actually we Already need more troops and I hate this administration for not doing it right.)




I wasnt saying that China has an interest to destroy the US. I was just saying that there is a silent conflict between the super-powers, and China supports and has to support anti-us related things in order to balance the situation! The US is empiring the whole middle east, China and Russia cannot tolerate and extension to NK.

Agreed, however I doubt that China's reaction would be to over-arm North Korea or to support North Korea in an actual war with America. I don't think it's an accident that they are with holding missile technology from North Korea and making them develop it on their own. I believe China wants Korea to be just safe enough to distract America and to survive- but not safe enough to make any progress or demands.


I give You some facts in about 24 hours at your U2U

Greatly appreciated. I'm looking forward to it.



Iam not trying to earns anyone respect. Iam not flaming anyone. Maybe i don't write in perfekt english, maybe some people are not on my opinion, but thats no reason to call me an "blind nationalist". Thanks...

Again you have my apology for the blind nationalist comment. It stemmed from my misunderstanding of your intention when you mentioned the Bulgarian connection particularly.

Anyway, it is good that we are on better terms now and not continuing to misunderstand or call names. I'm looking forward to talking more about Korea's possession of ramjet cruise missiles. I'm still skeptical about that though.

[edit on 2-4-2005 by The Vagabond]



posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 05:12 PM
link   
I would like to know more about NK tanks compared in juxtapostion to the US tanks. If anyone has anymore information that'd be great



[edit on 053030p://666 by LiquidationOfDiscrepancy]



posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 07:02 PM
link   
North Korea employs a large number of T-54s T-55s, and T-62s. They also have T-72s.
They have the capability to manufacture their own in addition to importing tanks from Russia.

T-54/T-55 are Russian tanks, designed in the 40s and built till the mid 80s. They were mainly for export towards the end. 3rd world countries like them because they are economical. They are very good for putting down rebels and civilians. They don't do nearly as well in conventional battle because their weak armor is vulnerable to most shoulder fired weapons and recoilless rifles. In the Iraq-Iran war, Iraq fielded the T-55 Enigma with an armor suppliment (steel encased concrete or a rubber and steel mixture matrix, depending who you ask.) These were more survivable, but still have almost no place in a tank battle, although they could be decent for infantry support.
The T-55's 100mm gun only penetrates 200mm RHA, or 380 with HEAT. It's a spitwad. The only way that T-55 stands a chance against a modern tank is if it can be brought right behind the enemy point blank and by complete surprise. John Antal's "Combat Team" covers this tactic, suggesting that Infantry forces could occupy/distract American tanks so that hidden T-55s can emerge from cover behind them and take them by surprise.
T-55 has a poor fuel range of only 390km.

The T-62 was the primary Russian tank between 1961 and 1975. It normally carries a 115mm gun, sometimes with an auto loader, but not always- it was the first tank to employ a hyrdolic autoloader. The autoloader is flawed, limits the tank to 4 aimed shots per minute, and jams when not adequately maintained.
It can fire the AT-10 Basnya
It has only 275mm of armor and does not used "spaced armor". When not equipped with reactive armor, it can be destroyed by any NATO 120mm tank cannon at any visible range.
With additional fuel tanks the T-62 has a range of up to 600km, which is pretty good.
In 2002 North Korea began making T-62s with a 125mm gun. These were initially mistaken for a derivative of the T-90, but they are not.

T-72M and T-72M1 are export versions of Russia's primary MBT (although those employed by Russia are being replaced by newer models and Russia's T-72s are far more advanced than the export versions.)
All T-72s have auto loaders prone to the same problems as T-62. They have average fuel range- 450km. Their armor is decent, but can be defeated by NATO 120mm from ranges in excess of 1km on the first shot. T-72 has a 125mm cannon which can defeat the Abrams with flank shots at reasonable distances. During the Gulf War, a T-72 claimed 2 kills on the M1A1 by keeping its engine off and operating the turret in manual mode- making itself virtually invisible to thermal viewers. Unfortunately for that tank, firing made the barrel hot, and that was all she wrote.
Non-export versions have included a great many upgrades including composite armor, reactive armor, laser range finders, anti tank missiles.
T-72 is capable but must be employed shrewdly to stand up to the better protected and better armed Abrams.

More to follow later.



posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by LiquidationOfDiscrepancy
I would like to know more about NK tanks compared in juxtapostion to the US tanks. If anyone has anymore information that'd be great


[edit on 053030p://666 by LiquidationOfDiscrepancy]


Just as Vagabond stated with the NK tanks in comparison to the Abrams tanks. However, the NK tanks stand little or no chance against overwhelming airpower strike from the US Air Force because they are mostly likely targeted first before the US tanks have any chance to engage them.

In the Gulf War I and II, many Iraqi Soviet- and Chinese-made tanks were taken out first by a various range of US aircraft fighters, B52 bombers, then AH-64 Apaches and A-10 Warthogs before the US tanks get into Iraq. The A-10 Warthogs are true tank-killers.

The US military have already "decapitation" plans in place on all NK tanks and mechanized artillery batteries once detected and on the move, with the US Air Force crafts moving in for the kills primarily. Then the US tanks, helicopters and infantry troops engage to mop up and destroy what left of NK's armored and mechanized units.

The odds are against the NK tanks in an overall war scenario, so far. I would anticipate a heavy tank fight between the NK tanks and the SK-US tanks at some points in that war.



posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_oleneo
Just as Vagabond stated with the NK tanks in comparison to the Abrams tanks. However, the NK tanks stand little or no chance against overwhelming airpower strike from the US Air Force because they are mostly likely targeted first before the US tanks have any chance to engage them.


I think I have to humbly disagree. North Korean artillery will almost certainly be the priority target. The tanks aren't as much of a threat, especially since they wont have the fuel to remain mobile for an extended period of time.
Soviet doctrine doesn't use armor as the spearhead of the assault the way Western doctrine does. The tanks are there to provide strategic depth- to plug gaps, exploit openings, and generally do the job of a highly mobile force. The point of the spear for Soviet-model forces is the infantry. Taking out their tanks from the air therefore doesn't do as much to relieve the pressure on us as destroying their artillery (which makes the infantry assault very 1-dimensional and vulnerable.)


The odds are against the NK tanks in an overall war scenario, so far. I would anticipate a heavy tank fight between the NK tanks and the SK-US tanks at some points in that war.

I hate to keep leaning on the same book, but it really was brilliant- in "Combat Team" Col. Antal proposes that using lone combined arms companies for deep operations could allow America to force battle on Korean tanks and artillery in the rear areas, allowing for the rapid destruction of whole batallions from just one little company team sized raid.
I think I buy that. Rather than one huge battle I believe we would see almost nightly fair-sized ones in which American tanks attempted to whittle down Korean reserves and logistical capabilities. Really the only question at all would be "can North Korea attain sufficient battlefield awareness to stop American tanks on the move. If yes, they can get us off the peninsula and we'll have to come in fresh with lots of force. If no, our reinforcements may not even get there in time to get their share of the action.



posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
I think I have to humbly disagree. North Korean artillery will almost certainly be the priority target. The tanks aren't as much of a threat, especially since they wont have the fuel to remain mobile for an extended period of time.
Soviet doctrine doesn't use armor as the spearhead of the assault the way Western doctrine does. The tanks are there to provide strategic depth- to plug gaps, exploit openings, and generally do the job of a highly mobile force. The point of the spear for Soviet-model forces is the infantry. Taking out their tanks from the air therefore doesn't do as much to relieve the pressure on us as destroying their artillery (which makes the infantry assault very 1-dimensional and vulnerable.)


Hmm, maybe so. It is all depends on where the NK forces are located and where they are moving toward to. We have satellites that can pinpoint any mobile actions in the DMZ or throughout the peninsula, which can be quickly feed to the recon and command points in South Korea and in the naval carriers in the sea, providing enough data of any enemy position and movement right down to a square feet. This should provide visual pictures to the US Air Force and US Navy on the whereabout of tank movement and artillery location at any given location. We have a huge tactical and technological advantage over North Korea.

Take out the tanks and the infantry troops lose its protection and support, even they are the spear-points of any offensive thrust. It would be suicidal to carry on the fights without the tanks to back them up.


Originally posted by The Vagabond
I hate to keep leaning on the same book, but it really was brilliant- in "Combat Team" Col. Antal proposes that using lone combined arms companies for deep operations could allow America to force battle on Korean tanks and artillery in the rear areas, allowing for the rapid destruction of whole batallions from just one little company team sized raid.
I think I buy that. Rather than one huge battle I believe we would see almost nightly fair-sized ones in which American tanks attempted to whittle down Korean reserves and logistical capabilities. Really the only question at all would be "can North Korea attain sufficient battlefield awareness to stop American tanks on the move. If yes, they can get us off the peninsula and we'll have to come in fresh with lots of force. If no, our reinforcements may not even get there in time to get their share of the action.


Just to let you know that I've learned from the GlobalSecurity.org website that only 7 US aircraft carriers are all available and deployable to the Korean Peninsula at the end of this year. This is a very rare opportunity to have all of them converge to one place. Realistically, I would expect only 4 US aircraft carriers to be deployed to the Peninsula and the rest could patrol elsewhere.



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Just wanted to point out, should an all out war break out between the US and North Korea:

North Korea:
Military manpower - availability:
males age 15-49: 6,181,038 (2004 est.)
(only a little over 3mil are fit for service)

United States:
Military manpower - availability:
males age 15-49: 73,597,731 (2004 est.)
Say you cut 20-50 million for those unfit for duty. You'd still end up with at least 4 times more manpower available than Korea.



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Just wanted to point out, should an all out war break out between the US and North Korea:

North Korea:
Military manpower - availability:
males age 15-49: 6,181,038 (2004 est.)
(only a little over 3mil are fit for service)

United States:
Military manpower - availability:
males age 15-49: 73,597,731 (2004 est.)
Say you cut 20-50 million for those unfit for duty. You'd still end up with at least 4 times more manpower available than Korea.


I see your point, but I'm not sure those numbers are relevant to a small war. If America needed 73,000,000 soldiers it would be the end of the world as we know it. 73 million people is what we've got to throw at them if our very existence is threatened- like if China invades us with the intent of turning us all into Soylent Green to feed their huge population.

America has come to expect deployments of under 1 million and casualties in the low thousands or even just the hundreds. Several years ago I heard a pundit suggest "A ground war in North Korea would take a full 6 months and cost us 30,000 casualties." The immediate response he got was, "If we lose 30,000 men in 6 months in KOREA there will be a revolution."
That may have been an overstatement but it does make a valid point- If we had another Vietnam- this time condensed into the space of just 6 months- America would never stand for it. Think about that- if we lost 5,000 troops a month- a 9/11 every month for our military- everbody would know somebody who had lost a kid- EVERYONE. That's a lot of anger and resentment for a government to endure.

I don't think that was a good estimate of casualities from a Korean war. I don't believe that a modern army can fight a 6 month war these days- I believe that in the new age of mechanized manuever warfare that for better or for worse the major fighting will usually be over within a few weeks, leaving mop-up only, and that casualties are drastically reduced by the strategies employed, which are no longer attrition centered but focus on "hitting them where they aren't". But I do believe that if we did find ourselves in a huge and ultra-costly war like that, the number of troops we can deploy wouldn't be nearly as important as the prospect for a coup, uprising, or general demand to pull out arising in America.



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
If America needed 73,000,000 soldiers it would be the end of the world as we know it. 73 million people is what we've got to throw at them if our very existence is threatened


I don't think it would ever come to that number of people being used for a war. If the United States was being threated with a complete take-over they have quite a nice arsenal of nuclear weapons at their disposal. I don't think that they would be very popular afterwords, but being unpopular and still there is better than being popular and gone. According to GlobalSecurity.org, the US has 10,640 nuclear warheads. Over 1,000 of them are on ICBMs so they could be launched from the US. Let's just hope that it never comes down to this. By the way Mutually assured destruction only works if both sides are armed to the teeth. N. Korea isn't so we can eliminate the threat that kept the US and USSR from attacking each other.



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 05:59 PM
link   
America is having a hard enough time getting troops for Iraq at the moment. We aren't going to do anything with N. Korea for awhile. It is to the point where technicians, clerks, cooks, etc....are having to pick up a rifle and go on patrol in Iraq. This is why Army Basic Training has been changed a lot, including a lot more hand-to-hand combat training, a lot more training with the rifle, a lot of simulated Iraq training, kicking in doors, etc....America isn't heading to N.K. anytime soon.



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 06:20 PM
link   
We have 300Million people but can barely muster 2mil, sad sad day in amercing history if only we could have another great Generation like the one we had during WWII. Either that or we have a draft its our own fault for not doing our duties for the armed forces.



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
We have 300Million people but can barely muster 2mil, sad sad day in amercing history if only we could have another great Generation like the one we had during WWII. Either that or we have a draft its our own fault for not doing our duties for the armed forces.


I at time have a love-hate relationship with my government, but before I say what I have to say let me make it clear that I am an American and proud of it, and do love my country- so you have your disclaimer.
Now let me ask, does our difficulty with recruiting/retention during this war really say anything about this generation, or does it have more to say about America at this point in time? I believe it was Heinlin who said, "If a country can't get it's own citizens to fight for it willingly, let the dang thing die."

Is it really that this generation is somehow morally inferior to those who came before, or is it that America (and America's cause) at this time is inferior? America really got behind the gulf war, even inspite of "the vietnam complex". The Iraqis told us we didn't have the stomach to see our men slaughtered by the hundreds, and they threatened us with the fourth largest tank army in the world at that time, but our people got behind that cause anyway.
America was good to go after 9/11 too. It woudn't have mattered if Afghanistan had been the size of China- there was no keeping us off of them.

I think that under the conditions faced by the Great Generation that we this generation would rise to the occasion. I don't believe the problem in Iraq is that America can't meet the challenge. I believe the problem in Iraq is that many Americans see the challenge as beneath them, in that they consider it the wrong war fought the wrong way for the wrong reasons. Do I personally believe those things about the war? I'm in between on that question, and that's not the issue. The perception is more of an issue than the reality when it comes to why America has manpower problems with Iraq.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 09:02 PM
link   
If America invaded North Korea from the South, with Japan, etc, in my view and from my studies a number of things would happen:
If America tried to capture the Yule River, China would get involved. (Korean War).
Thsi could be the chance for Russia to regain dominance, as a large military loss for America would be a major set back.
China would now be able to invade Taiwan.
China would now be able to do a large scale attack on Japan to get 'revenge' after WW2.

If China joined in, the large land attack would reverse. America is teh technological superior, but China will soon have a 1000 unit fleet, for its Navy, roughly 2500 (I think) for its Air Force and 2.5million men. They would throw everything they have at crippling the American attack, just through fear of America putting a large base in N.K. and on their border. Also a lot of the E.U. Nations would not join in. Soon Britain will be earning 2-3% of its GDP from China alone, in 'teaching', so they can't afford to loose it.

As the Kroean War showed, just beacause you have better technology doesn't mean you can win the war. After all, some Chinese soldiers were using swords against armed forces and swarming the Americans.

This if anything could bring a major loss for America, Japan and any of their allied Countries. With possible Control of Korea by China in the end, as well as Taiwan and most importantly a major blow to Japan. Even setting them back 30-to-50years.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Broadsword20068
America is having a hard enough time getting troops for Iraq at the moment. We aren't going to do anything with N. Korea for awhile. It is to the point where technicians, clerks, cooks, etc....are having to pick up a rifle and go on patrol in Iraq. This is why Army Basic Training has been changed a lot, including a lot more hand-to-hand combat training, a lot more training with the rifle, a lot of simulated Iraq training, kicking in doors, etc....America isn't heading to N.K. anytime soon.


This isnt the only time that they have had to do this, where i work there are a couple of Vietnam vets, 2 of them were cooks the other was a paper pusher, US had a bigger military then then they do right now, and all 3 of them were takin from where they were and given guns and told to go fight,

They certainly werent short of men that they could have sent over there But if i remember correctly Congress only gave the president a certain amount of troops that he could use, Including Infantry,cooks,bookeepers, and maintenance personnel, And same today in Iraq the US currently has like 1.7 million troops throughout the world, They just dont want to have to send a whole bunch of reserves over there, I feel there is no shortage of troops we are not facing Huge military nations"Yet" so i feel that 1.7 is sufficient as long as bush doesnt feel like he has to use all of them.

Please correct me if im wrong which i probably am but wasnt the Original amount of troops that were suppose to go to Iraq like 240,000, But Congress didnt want to no more then 180,000 and the other 60,000 could be used if it was an absolute emergency, So probably much like Vietnam it wasnt like they didnt have the people that they could have sent over there they just had to make use of what they were allowed to have,



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 11:50 PM
link   
No offense, but anyone who believes taking out North Korea is easy is a fool. Reguardless of who attacks first, or why it happens... If it does, millions will die. LOL at anyone who thinks it will be easy. Look how long it took us to finish off Iraq. 3 years for one of the poorest countries in the world. We were in Nam for what? 7 years? And they're not even close to North Korea's military strength.

Anyway, it's very doubtful that Us would be dumb enough to attack them. We've got more important matters than who's REALLY a threat. We need that black gold.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join