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

Originally posted by Master Wu
One thing is certain: a second war with north korea would not only be the messiest/bloodiest war in human history, it would be the last war in human history. Nuclear weapons if used on the scale necessary (by eather side) to win would cause so much destruction and death, alot of those numbers of military units would become moot points. The insuing chaos would throw military plans (again, by both sides) out the window.

The united states of course, would prevail, but at what cost?

I for one could never again trust my government if they nuked someone without just cause (and no, wmd is not just cause, 911 is not just cause). I would gladly (or sadly) rebel against my government if they started a nuclear war with north korea.

Sadly, these are the kinds of mental excercises that arise when the office of president of the united states is occupied by a serial killer.

I'm sorry, but most of what you said just isn't true. There is no way that a war between the US and NK would even come close to WWII where over fifty six MILLION people died. There are only 22 million people in all of North Korea. So there goes that idea.

CIA factbook

The US could win this war conventionally in under 6 months. The NK military just simply does not stand a chance against that of the US. The US has the logistical base and precision strike ability to take away the Norths ability to wage war fairly quickly.

From a nuclear prospective, the US doesn't need to use them. Perhaps a few tactical nukes would be used for selected hardened targets, but those most likely wouldn't be in highly populated areas. North Korea has between 2 or 3 and a dozen nuclear weapons depending on who you talk to, and these weapons can not hit the US main land. In fact, missle sites that could deliver nuclear warheads would be among the very first targets targeted by the US (most likely by B-2 bombers or cruise missle).

And one last thing, Bush has nothing to do with the North Korean problem. Keep your anti Bush drivel out of this. The reason there is a problem is because of a REAL serial killer named Kim. A guy that starves his people to the point that they DIG UP GRAVES TO EAT THE RANCID FLESH OF THE DEAD.

The problem is this same mass murderer has become nuclear capable.

The US shouldn't be looking at anyone for a while. Between being hammered in the ME, to being hammered by Natural disastors at home, and the renewed good will towards the US from the rest of the world, maybe the US should just cool it's heels before it, like a stuck pig, bleeds a very slow, agonizing death.

If all goes well in the six-way talks, which I REALLY hope they do, and so should ALL OF YOU (yes, including you, AMM), the most potentially destructive war in history should be impossible.

We can only wait and hope...

Originally posted by The Vagabond

So here's your typical battle between NK and American forces. American tanks bypass Korean infantry positions under cover of darkness, with American artillery providing suppression against any Korean fire called in against the tanks. North Korea moves its tank and mechanized infantry forces into the breach, assuming that the Korean infantry's communications were not being disrupted. American tanks engage and destroy the Korean response and proceed into Korean territory to eliminate a supply depot or artillery battery, then come back through the lines, dealing out a few parting blows the the Korean front line.

Picture this happening countless times every night, and each time NK's ability to fight back decreases.

LOL, I find this laughable at best. Just how much artillery do you think the US has ? Bugger all compared to NK.
VAgabond, you really overesimate America's ability in Korea. Hell, they can't even control Iraq for gods sake., and half the population want them there. You couldn't imagine what it would be like for US soldiers going into NK. Every citizen with a gun would be out for them.

PLease, your assumptions are completely flawed.

BTW, The NK special forces are highly trained and have been active against SK and oher countries for 50 years. They are neither secand rate or a pushover. Seems like typical american arrogance to me - like I said just look at Iraq and you think you hvae a hope of invading NK LMAO.

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by The Vagabond

So here's your typical battle between NK and American forces. American tanks bypass Korean infantry positions under cover of darkness, with American artillery providing suppression against any Korean fire called in against the tanks. North Korea moves its tank and mechanized infantry forces into the breach, assuming that the Korean infantry's communications were not being disrupted. American tanks engage and destroy the Korean response and proceed into Korean territory to eliminate a supply depot or artillery battery, then come back through the lines, dealing out a few parting blows the the Korean front line.

Picture this happening countless times every night, and each time NK's ability to fight back decreases.

LOL, I find this laughable at best. Just how much artillery do you think the US has ? Bugger all compared to NK.
VAgabond, you really overesimate America's ability in Korea. Hell, they can't even control Iraq for gods sake., and half the population want them there. You couldn't imagine what it would be like for US soldiers going into NK. Every citizen with a gun would be out for them.

PLease, your assumptions are completely flawed.

BTW, The NK special forces are highly trained and have been active against SK and oher countries for 50 years. They are neither secand rate or a pushover. Seems like typical american arrogance to me - like I said just look at Iraq and you think you hvae a hope of invading NK LMAO.

I think you made a very good point rogue1, I am not doubting the US military capability by no means. I think war with NK would last much longer than 72 hours, or six months. You are right, the NK's special forces are pretty hardcore from what I read. I'll try and find a story later where they were caught in SK, and had to kill off about 50 SK soliders, with only about 8 guys. Then how they hid for like 2 weeks before being caught. It is something like that; but maybe I'm wrong.

Most people look at NK & see a very very poor country, but you must remember every dime NK has goes to its military. I think they even take young boys around 5 and 6 & put them into the military at young ages.
These people hate America with all their heart and souls, and will do ANYTHING to try and eliminate the west.

It will be against our favor to fight in their country, on their mountains, in their environment. Even though we could do much damage from the air, we'd still have to send in ground troops.

My question is, what advance technology does NK have? How long would a war with NK last? & What chances does the US have to win the war against NK, without ending in a blood bath for both sides?

Originally posted by rogue1
LOL, I find this laughable at best. Just how much artillery do you think the US has ? Bugger all compared to NK.

Bugger all, but unlike the North Koreans we'll actually be hitting targets when we fire. Once the lines have moved and their initial recon is no longer of use they will only be able to effectively hit targets when they have spotters calling in fire. Our firefinder radar will make our artillery far more effective in countering theirs.

VAgabond, you really overesimate America's ability in Korea. Hell, they can't even control Iraq for gods sake., and half the population want them there. You couldn't imagine what it would be like for US soldiers going into NK. Every citizen with a gun would be out for them.

That is exactly your problem. You think that all wars are Vietnam or Iraq. Nothing could be further from the truth. What need does America have to "control" the North Korean people? When deprived of fire support and logistics a militia or even a poorly drilled regular military disintegrates into just a bunch of guys with rifles, all dressed up with no place to go.

You fail to realize the tremendous difference between war and counter-insurgency. If you care to learn a thing or two about modern warfare I recommend a study of the Six Day War, The Yom Kippur War, The Battle of Wadi Doum (actually there are several examples of mobility over force throughout the war for the Aozou Strip), and Operation Desert Storm.
Modern wars are fought and won by manuever, not attrition. Truth be told, this is not unique to modern war, but has simply become more important as battlefield awareness, mobility, and logistics have advanced (During the American Revolution, we forced the British out of Boston without ever actually winning a decisive battle by controlling the mobility and supply lines of the British force, and the Duke of Marlborough pretty much made his career on moving his forces faster than anyone would have though possible, causing one foe to say of his army "If they're there, the devil carried them!").

Seems like typical american arrogance to me

230 Years of kicking butts and taking names on bigger, badder armies will do that to you. If you can think of anyone who's pulled off more upsets since 1775 I'd like to hear it.

And lest we forget, the supposed nightmare in Iraq which you have referred to several times began with the unconditional surrender/desertion of the entire Iraqi army and the capture of their capital in about 3 weeks by roughly 160,000 coalition troops- really not nearly enough, but we're just that dang good. (and it doesn't hurt that everybody drops their weapon and runs like hell when they see "TueffelHunden, Angels of Death, Devil's in Black Boots, etc etc" A jarhead by any other name still scares the fecal matter out of everyone, no matter how supposedly motivated they may be. Let's not forget that until the Iraqis got their first bloody nose at Khafji, everyone thought they were one of the toughest, meanest, most battle hardened and patriotic militaries on the planet. Should there ever be a war, I expect an apology and a six pack when the NK Special Forces react the same way as everyone else does- run from the Marines, look for the army.)

The mishandling of the ensuing counter-insurgency is a separate matter. We are discussiong America's military potency compared to North Koreas. One last piece of food for thought, it's not a lack of warfighting ability that makes counter-insurgency difficult for America. Compared to us, Genghis Kahn didn't even have an army, yet he did a far better job of controlling populations whose armies he had defeated. Why don't you dwell on that for a few moments and figure out what he was doing that we aren't.

[edit on 6-9-2005 by The Vagabond]

Dear Vagabond,


let me give you some examples of wars that the US lost or didn't win :

Vietnam and the Korean war ( 1950-1953 )

During the Korean war, the US did not face a guerilla but a conventional army...

I have no doubt that the US would win a war against NK but at what price? Is the American public opinion ready to see 30 000, 40000... soldiers die? i don't think so. The thing is that it's only in desperate situations (WW2, or the US mainland being invaded) that the US could afford such losses.

the NKorean threat can be contained without a war

Originally posted by ludo182
Dear Vagabond,
let me give you some examples of wars that the US lost or didn't win :
Vietnam and the Korean war ( 1950-1953 )

Hmm, what do those two wars have in common. Give me a second, I'm sure it will come to me. Oh, I've got it. Two things. 1. Limited War. 2. Attrition.
Also it bears mentioning that although the Korean War is generally not credited as a victory, we did infact achieve our mission. The aggressors failed to sieze South Korea. The Chinese kept on coming and we kept on running them through a meat grinder. Our F-86s slaughtered the vaunted MiG-15 at a ratio of 10:1.
If the Korean war proved anything at all, it proved that even with the lower firepower, mobility, and logistics we fielded 50 years ago that we can hold our own against vastly larger forces virtually indefinately.

I have no doubt that the US would win a war against NK but at what price? Is the American public opinion ready to see 30 000, 40000... soldiers die? i don't think so. The thing is that it's only in desperate situations (WW2, or the US mainland being invaded) that the US could afford such losses.

Who gave them a choice? If Korea attacks and we make our stand, Korea will be in ruins before the timeframe alloted by the War Powers Resolution has expired, unless of course China jumps in, and do you really think the American people are going to be bullied by the Chi Coms?

I'm not saying that the war wouldn't be a terrible idea- it would be. I'm just saying that if Kim Jong Il should get that terrible idea in his head, within 2 months, he won't have a head, and there's no force on this Earth, short of the nuclear anhilation of the entire human race, that could save him.

im sure we beat the crap out of the NK forces along with Kim as well as long as China does not intervene again like last time which we almost had all of Korea united under democratic rule. o yeah we did win the war because North Korea failed their objectives in invading and taking over all of South Korea.

What is China's take on NK? Are they 100% behind NK in time of war?
How is the relationship between NK and China politically and military wise?

What advances in technology does China have in a juxapostion compared to US military capabilities?

Originally posted by LiquidationOfDiscrepancy
What is China's take on NK? Are they 100% behind NK in time of war?
How is the relationship between NK and China politically and military wise?

China, like any nation, will obviously place its rational self interest above blind support of an a nominal ally. For Kim Jong Il to initiate a war without China's approval would be a slap in the face to China as the primary upholder of North Korea's tenuous grip on survival. Such an insult would almost certainly demand punishment, in addition to the fact that China can not accept the danger of economic consequences or even potentially nuclear war associated with fighting a war with America for such an unremarkable reason as to support a foolish gambit on North Korea's part. Nor can China tollerate an American occupation of North Korea, from a strategic or prideful standpoint. Therefore the most logical recourse for China, assuming that America does not make the mistake of challenging or otherwise offending China's national dignity, is to back a coup or stage an invasion of North Korea if Kim Jong Il should come off of his leash.

China's military is beginning to design and field modernized units which could be considered competitive with all but the very best of NATO hardware. The vaunted Su-30 and it's J-type equivalents are not really a match for the F-22, no matter what the Indians may tell you about the Su-30MKK, however with the proper training and armament it could be competitive against most other aircraft in the US arsenal.

China's tanks at present are mostly upgraded versions of Russian hardware ranging from T-55 to T-72. The T-55 and 62 knockoffs are mostly harmless to, except perhaps at point blank range when matched against a modern MBT, however upgunned versions of those models and any T-72 with the appropriate ammunition (not the outdated steel penetrators used by the Iraqis) could in fact be a threat if employed shrewdly, although they are at a significant disadvantage to the Abrams. The autoloaders are slow, inefficient, and prone to malfunction when not properly maintained, their optics are not what they could be, and their standard armor (barring modular upgrades or ERA) is not even nearly comparable the the Chobham armor on ours.

I'm not so sure about their artillery's target acquisition, and that is a very important factor. I seem to remember reading that Artillery inflicted 80% of all casualties in 20th century wars, although of course that is primarily an attrition-oriented statistic, and as such is of waning relevance.

Perhaps the primary advantage of American forces over Chinese ones however is combined arms integration. The MAGTF is arguably the most effective fighting organization currently in existence. American force structure is increasingly tending toward integration which ensures adequate support and autonomy to the units, allowing commanders to seize the iniative and exploit critical opportunities when they are presented.

China's greatest asset is obviously their numerical superiority. If they can move fast enough, they can theoretically overwhelm the ability of American logistics to sustain tempo, on the condition that they can "fix" the American force. Sustaining mobility and control of tempo would be absolutely vital to overcoming this obstacle for America.

Originally posted by The Vagabond

Originally posted by rogue1
LOL, I find this laughable at best. Just how much artillery do you think the US has ? Bugger all compared to NK.

Bugger all, but unlike the North Koreans we'll actually be hitting targets when we fire. Once the lines have moved and their initial recon is no longer of use they will only be able to effectively hit targets when they have spotters calling in fire. Our firefinder radar will make our artillery far more effective in countering theirs.

Well, if in the scenario put forward, the US and SK advance into the North, their artillery would have a major advantage. They have had 50 years to acurately preregister their artillery on their side of the border and 50 km south of it. There isn't a single military or geograohical target in these areas that NK doesn't know the precise location of. Add to this the fact that they would have literally 10's of thousands prepared postions from which to conceal and move their artillery.
Sure aircraft could destroy some of these positions event thousands of them, but there are still many more. Aircraft would be flying over extremely hostile airspace, reducing their chances of successful missions. US artillery while as you say, being more effective in counter-battery and accuracy would still face a numerical disadvantage of 10-1 if not more. This massive NK Korean advantage in tubes is more than capable of offsetting any US advantage gained through superior fire control. Of course this doesn't even take into account the even more massive NK advantage in free flight artillery rockets of all calibers.
Also, NK is inccredibly heavily fortified well past the DMZ to depths of most probably hundred of km's. A deep advance into NK would almost definately result in the use of chemical weapons, further hindering any US led advance.

[edit on 7-9-2005 by rogue1]

Originally posted by The Vagabond

That is exactly your problem. You think that all wars are Vietnam or Iraq. Nothing could be further from the truth. What need does America have to "control" the North Korean people? When deprived of fire support and logistics a militia or even a poorly drilled regular military disintegrates into just a bunch of guys with rifles, all dressed up with no place to go.

The country has had a least 4 generations indoctrined to hate the US, do you think they are going to be welcomed with open arms ?
The manpower required by the uS would be immense, it would take the commitment of almost of all their combat ground forces. An Iraq style of invasion of NK would be far too few soldiers to make any decisive victory possible.

You fail to realize the tremendous difference between war and counter-insurgency. If you care to learn a thing or two about modern warfare I recommend a study of the Six Day War, The Yom Kippur War, The Battle of Wadi Doum (actually there are several examples of mobility over force throughout the war for the Aozou Strip), and Operation Desert Storm.
Modern wars are fought and won by manuever, not attrition.

These are all desert wars on pretty much flat terrain, with almost no place for concealment. Let alone like in NK a mountainous country which has been heavily fortified for 50 years. The terrain in NK does not allow for massive movements on armour, rather armour can be channelled by the defenders into kill zones.
You could also expect all points of advance to be heavily mined, negatinf mobile warfare to some extent.

Just look at what a single hurricane did.

Im willing to bet that korea could do worse to us with nuclear weapons than what katrina did to New Orleans.

Lets just say its only 3 or 4 U.S. cities nuked. And we of course nuke them as well. How do you know that the conflict will stay entirely within that theatre of operations? What makes you think the entire world wouldnt unravel (with a potential united states civil war thrown in) as soon as someone nukes someone and the nuclear rock fight begins?

Im sorry, but your assessment of my previous assessment IMO is far too 'surfacy' and short sighted (extremely informative though i must admit). There are HUGE 'outside the box' factors that you are not taking into account... How would china react to a weakened USA? or Russia? How would our allies react to us using nuclear weapons? This isnt just 2 kids on a playground, its more like 2 kids on a crowded bus where other kids are watching and waiting for just such an opportunity. And who's to say the bus driver won't get injured and crash the whole thing?

Just ONE United States city gets nuked and the entire world will forever be changed for the worse, believe you me.

Imagine how much worse a nuclear explosion over a US city would be compared to what that hurricane did. Not to mention the multiple logistics cuts, emp pulses etc... The US would fall into instant chaos one way or another, whether it wins or loses.

Originally posted by Master Wu
Imagine how much worse a nuclear explosion over a US city would be compared to what that hurricane did. Not to mention the multiple logistics cuts, emp pulses etc... The US would fall into instant chaos one way or another, whether it wins or loses.

Well for a start it is highly unlikely that NK can attack the US directly with nuclear weapons. The nuclear weapons they have built(or building) are of a simple fission design of about 20kt, about the size of Fatman over Nagasaki. This would cause massive blast damage in the local area but would have nowhere near the widespread destruction like NO hurricane and the other parts of the coast.

I can only post briefly at the moment though more will follow. There is ample evidence from the Korean War that you don't have to be in "good tank country" to use tanks effectively. Refer to Operation Touchdown. There was also a defensive action in which tanks played a vital role but I've forgotten the location.

A good start in these matters that I have recommended to many people here before are John Antall's books, especially The Combat Team.

More to follow when I have more time on my hands.

In short though, you can rest assured that your points about Korean hatred of America will be shown to be moot. We don't have to kill them all. They won't even get a chance to resist, so their ferocity will mean nothing. They'll be without command, transportation, food, or ammo after a short time.
As far as artillery is concerned, you can expect me to argue that the ability of our tanks to penetrate their lines will more than make up for any remaining advantage you might percieve from their numbers versus our fire control.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
I can only post briefly at the moment though more will follow. There is ample evidence from the Korean War that you don't have to be in "good tank country" to use tanks effectively. Refer to Operation Touchdown. There was also a defensive action in which tanks played a vital role but I've forgotten the location.

Sure tanks were used, but they were by far the predominant force on teh battlefield.

In short though, you can rest assured that your points about Korean hatred of America will be shown to be moot. We don't have to kill them all. They won't even get a chance to resist, so their ferocity will mean nothing. They'll be without command, transportation, food, or ammo after a short time.

Everything would be pre stockpiled, they don't have to worry about supply, they're fuighting a defensive war. It is the US supply lines which would be extraordinarily vulnerable to attack by NK.
We've seen what happened in Iraq, and most of them don't mind the Americans. Every village would be a hostile place for US soldiers in NK.
Vagabond you seem to be blind to the obvious.

As far as artillery is concerned, you can expect me to argue that the ability of our tanks to penetrate their lines will more than make up for any remaining advantage you might percieve from their numbers versus our fire control.

I doubt american tanks would make any lightning dash through NK lines. Especially as I have said before they have fortifications in depth. The Abrams has already shown how vulnerable they are even to the simple anti-tank mine. Hell one Abams was lost to a .50 caliber bullet . Then of course there is the infantry which would have to accompany the tanks. They would be easy meat for the NK.

As well, As I've said before all NK arty would have pre registered concentrations in depth. They don't need amreicas high tech fire direction apparatus.

Originally posted by rogue1
Everything would be pre stockpiled, they don't have to worry about supply, they're fuighting a defensive war. It is the US supply lines which would be extraordinarily vulnerable to attack by NK.
We've seen what happened in Iraq, and most of them don't mind the Americans. Every village would be a hostile place for US soldiers in NK.
Vagabond you seem to be blind to the obvious.

Since when do we obviously have to enter the villages? This is what I'm trying to tell you. Let them sit around in their little villages, without orders, without transportation, starving, and with only what supplies they have stockpiled already- and if they should have their cache bombed or if they should expend a resource, that's it.
Why do we have to go in and occupy Iraq style? Iraq, for the umpteenth time, is a counter-insurgency operation, not a war. The WAR was over in less than a month without the insurgents taking any toll in that time, and that's what will happen in Korea. We'll fix them, cut them off at the knees by taking out their fire support, and let them sit there impotent and unsupported till they rott. Unravel their military, take the capital, get out. Done.


You can rely all you want on one in a million examples of a .50cal round finding a gap in the Abrams armor, or that we will offer them chances to engage at point-blank as in urban scenarios where our IFVs and tanks would be "easy meat" but let's be realistic. This war will be fought in the field at greater ranges. IEDs, RPG ambushes, etc will not be nearly the danger they are in the mismanaged Iraq counter-insurgency.

Then you rely on pre-registered artillery. That's nice, if their radio communications aren't jammed. Frequency hopping is a nice jerry-rig for security but it doesn't stop us from flooding all frequencies with jamming.

I tell you and tell you and tell you and if you don't want to believe it that's your call, but I'm telling you that the American advantage in mobility, awareness, communication, and logistics is going to completely overwhelm Korean numbers. It's not a long haul from the 38th to Pyongyang. What extended supply lines? When we get rolling against them our artillery airpower, and armored raids are going to cut their fire support out from under them, and that's gonna be all she wrote. Their forces will become one dimensional and shortly thereafter they'll be hunkered down in their villages for phase two, only to find out that unless we're completely stupid that we'll just move along on our merry way gutting their military structure then leave, mission accomplished.

LOL Vagabond, you completely negate the facts. Suit yourself, you obviously have more reading to do.

As for villages, what do you think the Americans are going to do, completely ignore the raod system and bring their supllies in cross country ? It just wouldn't be possible. Therefore villages do come into it as they sit on roads and junctions etc. If you can't see that you're a fool.
Also if you'd bothered to read any of the information I posted you'd realise that the NK are using fibre optics more and more in their communications. The US can't jam those
You haven't put forward one logical reason why the US would kick ass so easily. Your argument seems to be ' America is the best, so there ' LOL.
Like I said america has a tough enough time in Iraq against poorly trained insurgents. In NK they would be facing a guerilla war of a scale several orders of magnitude greater. To say guerilla war doesn't come into it, is being gullible in the extreme.

Originally posted by rogue1
As for villages, what do you think the Americans are going to do, completely ignore the raod system and bring their supllies in cross country ?

So now every small village in North Korea lies along a strategically vital highway? Get real my friend.

Also if you'd bothered to read any of the information I posted you'd realise that the NK are using fibre optics more and more in their communications. The US can't jam those

You mean to tell me that every single North Korean infantry company's position has a fiber optic communication line back to their supporting batteries, which they can utilize no matter where they or the batteries are moved to, and if so you're next going to tell me that these lines are not in the least bit vulnerable to attack, because obviously if they were using such lines for all fire mission requests then they'd be absolutely screwed across the board if we were to take out those lines.

You haven't put forward one logical reason why the US would kick ass so easily. Your argument seems to be ' America is the best, so there ' LOL.

Hardly. You, oddly enough like most of the mindless "America is the best" crowd which you presume to lump me in with, are a hardware worshipper (my company gunny at SOI would have called that a gear queer, but I wouldn't want to insult you like that).

I on the other hand am objecting to your oversimplification on the same grounds that I usaully find myself shooting down those who believe America can never lose. The simple fact of the matter is that the core elements of successful manuever warfare are every bit as much about training, organization, doctrine, and tactical ability as they are about numbers or technology. America dominates both sides of that equation in every respect except numbers. All things being equal (that is to say, assuming that both sides fight to their full potential) the American edge in training, organization, doctrine, tactics, and technology as an added bonus strongly suggests that America will do the more effective job of controlling tempo and accessing the enemy's critical weaknesses.
America quite simply as the advantage in this matchup.

In order to overcome this, the North Korean effort will need incredible recon, extremely clever circumventions of America's technical and tactical advantages, and most importantly they will need to be able to coordinate and execute a strong counter offensive at the critical moment if they should succeed in stalling our initial attack. If they fail in these respects, their critical weakness, which is their reliance on indirect fire to shore up the hopeless inferiority of their armor and infantry, will be exploited and they will lose the war.

Like I said america has a tough enough time in Iraq against poorly trained insurgents. In NK they would be facing a guerilla war of a scale several orders of magnitude greater. To say guerilla war doesn't come into it, is being gullible in the extreme.

The defender does not have sole control over the type of war to be waged. Guerilla warfare is all well and good for harrassing and demoralizing an occupying force, but the inability to fight and win a decisive engagement leaves you unable to prevent the enemy from simply gutting your nation and leaving. For the Umpteenth plus one time, the assumption that we will attempt to occupy is flawed. Iraq and North Korea are targets for different reasons. There is no reason to occupy North Korea. We can roll in, crush their military and infrastructure, and roll right back out, leaving the guerillas hiding in their holes waiting for a fight that will never come.

You can criticize me all you want, and you may even convince a few people that I'm wrong. Suit yourself. You'll get my attention though when you start forecasting strategic developments weeks or sometimes months ahead of their occurance. I called an alliance between Russia and India before BRICS. I called new trouble with Venezuela the minute Porter Goss took over the CIA and was putting Chavez articles into ATSNN weeks before Fox News figured out what a big issue it was. I like this stuff, I spend a lot of time on this stuff, I get how it works even to the point that I can occasionally see things coming before they happen.

God forbid we go to war with North Korea, the analysts saying 6 months are gonna be embarrassed and I'm going to be vindicated. I'm telling you right now so there'll be absolutely no room for doubt if it should happen. 2 or 3 months tops, and less than one month counted from the day that we begin major offensive operations. Our casualties 10-50k, depending on who strikes first and who is secretary of defense. How many missiles will hit Japan? Probably 25 or fewer. How many carrying NBC warheads? None. Does China get involved? No, unless they're attacking North Korea.

I put the odds of us actually fighting North Korea at well under 10%, less than 1% for us striking first, but if it happens, don't bother watching the news, you've been told.

(/narcissistic prognostication)