Pentagon Estimates 250,000 US Dead In A North Korean War

page: 2
20
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by fenceSitter
 



You can take out Un and his senior military but in reality you have a country of 10 million people that have been fed anti-US propaganda for decades. I believe a lot of them will still be fighting long after Un is gone.


I keep hoping we learn the lesson, but we keep repeating the same mistake...trying to liberate people who don't WANT it... I keep hoping that we just cut off the head, and let the snake take shape and grow a new one. If we don't like the new one, cut off the head again, rinse, repeat. A much sounder strategy. (in my opinion)

In this case though, there are others (China) who will want a hand in it (reshaping NK after cutting off the head), so here, we may have a chance at finally not repeating this same, irritating mistake by our commanders.




posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
That is unacceptable, we need more like forty million dead. That will bring down the unemployment rate better and help the economy out.


Just kidding....I think

I know I should lighten up but I did not like your comment.



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by peter_kandra
 


Oh cos you don't want to just defeat NoKo's army, you want to genocide all the civilians there too....Smart, real smart.



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 09:14 AM
link   


Pentagon Estimates 250,000 US Dead In A North Korean War,


That could actually be a very conservative estimate. Never count out the use of bio/chem weapons by crazy leaders currently in NK. It's obvious Un is desperate to make his mark on the world stage and desperate people don't think rationally.
edit on 8-4-2013 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by ken10
 


The army ARE the civilians there, by and large. I'd hope we'd focus more on military assets, Command & Control locations, and focus on the infrastructure used to make war though, than troops.



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 09:15 AM
link   
All of NKorea hates the US, but does not make it acceptable for NKorea to say they ARE going to nuke the US. I mean these people are not saying they might or they want to ,but they ARE going to nuke us. So my thoughts are, we need to take out their military. Not by using nukes ,but the other missiles and bombs we have that are very effective. It needs to be a joint UN effort as well. We could take their big guns out with minimal loss of life on our end. Where the heck is Obama in all of this. I mean if it were Clinton/Bush we would have been addressed by now. I have said this before. If a man was pointing a gun at you and said he was going to shoot and kill you , would you just stand there or would you do something and try to save your life?



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 09:20 AM
link   
An estimation of 250,000 casualties is likely considering hand-to-hand combat.

Using weapons of mass destruction is highly unlikely due to South Korea being on the same peninsula. Any weapon of mass destruction would lead to consequences on the whole peninsula, including South Korea. Although in the case of North Korea using a weapon of mass destruction on South Korea, it is likely that the response is similar.

North Korea is estimated to have around 6,500,000 soldiers, while South Korean army has up to 12,500,000 soldiers.

When weapons of mass-destruction would not be used, hand-to-hand combat will not be easy due to rough terrain. Although the American-South Korean troops would have a strong advantage in the long run, as North Korea has scarce resources and less advanced technology. It is likely that the war would end in less than 3 months, although both sides will have lots of casualties and 250,000 casualties is likely, although it would be a high estimate.



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by kurthall
 


For starters, they are not rushing in there because they have a formidable military force and a war with NK will seriously deplete the US economy. ALso they need to be careful due to the close proximity to Russia and China. One little mistake and its WW3. ALso they need to seriously consider the nuclear capabilities of NK.



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cabin
An estimation of 250,000 casualties is likely considering hand-to-hand combat.

Using weapons of mass destruction is highly unlikely due to South Korea being on the same peninsula. Any weapon of mass destruction would lead to consequences on the whole peninsula, including South Korea. Although in the case of North Korea using a weapon of mass destruction on South Korea, it is likely that the response is similar.

North Korea is estimated to have around 6,500,000 soldiers, while South Korean army has up to 12,500,000 soldiers.

When weapons of mass-destruction would not be used, hand-to-hand combat will not be easy due to rough terrain. Although the American-South Korean troops would have a strong advantage in the long run, as North Korea has scarce resources and less advanced technology. It is likely that the war would end in less than 3 months, although both sides will have lots of casualties and 250,000 casualties is likely, although it would be a high estimate.


What NK lacks in technology and manpower it makes up in artillery. It has stockpiled enough artillery over the years to decimate every city within a 400 mile radius and can do so very efficiently and quickly. That and they have quite the robust manufacturing industry and have a very large armored division and even air force although they are seriously outdated in both those areas. Mind you, their sheer numbers of combat capable aircraft can be troublesome. It may take them hundreds of aircraft to do so but even if they manage to down a dozen of US aircraft that would be a serious blow to the US as those aircraft are expensive to replace.

I strongly believe it wouldnt be as easy as everything thinks. EVen a high death toll , destroyed cities, and a huge loss in military strengh is a loss IMHO.



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by ken10
 


The army ARE the civilians there, by and large. I'd hope we'd focus more on military assets, Command & Control locations, and focus on the infrastructure used to make war though, than troops.


Ah. So you are making an excuse to kill women and children with that statement.



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by kurthall

Originally posted by rickymouse
That is unacceptable, we need more like forty million dead. That will bring down the unemployment rate better and help the economy out.


Just kidding....I think

I know I should lighten up but I did not like your comment.


I know, I am being a little too rational. I don't like population reduction even though I know it is probably necessary. I don't like seeing so many people who want to work not having work either. I am glad I am not in charge of anything like that.
edit on 8-4-2013 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Having read the article and doing a bit of research the following can be stated:

The number stated, is a light estimate, at the best of what to expect if the US and Nk were to go at it. During the 3 years that Korea went on, from 1950 to 1953 there were a total of 36,516 deaths on the US, along with 92,134 US military personel wounded in that time frame. Averaging out to about 45 US service personel killed every day.

The total number of casualties, both wounded and killed were estimated as follows:
American: 33,600
UN Allies: 16,000
South Koreans: 415,000
North Korean: 520,000
Chinese: 900,000

That was back then in the 1950's using convential weapons, no nukes, no weapons of mass destructions, just over all boots on the grounds, bombs from the air, and land mines.

Now we move forward, lets look at what the figures are for the last 2 armed conflicts in the lives of American military personell:
Deaths: 6518
Wounded: 41,936.

And that is against a foe who is demoralized and who have very little if any military training and resources.

Now we come to the Korea again, and this time it may or may be different. The problem is that the military of Korea is highly disciplined, and well taken care off, the people view their leader as a living god. It would not take an hour to deal with NK, rather you are looking at years and higher causaltie numbers, against an enemy who would view the US's actions all based on what they have been told all of their lives, that the US is evil, that the US is going to come and kill them and their families. And then there is the problem with China, does anyone really think that China is going to just sit idle during this time frame, without first moving troops, amunition and supplies into NK, while the US and SK runs roughshod over the north? Combine that with the fact that NK is able to put together a nuclear weapon and it is a different war, with more causalties on both sides. And if we did go into NK, the winning goal would be to have a peace treaty this time, not just a cease fire armistice.

I don't think that China will allow it to get that far this time, but if it does, they will probably set a perimeter as it did the last time. The first time they told the US and the general in charge (McArthur) not to come within 20 miles of the Yalu river, or it would be considered an act of war. McArthur chose to ignore such, and went up to the Yalu river, and that ultimately prolonged the conflict far too long than it should have been. Ultimately this time again, with the rhetoric starting up, China is setting up its forces and will probably tell the US, SK, and its allies, you can go this far, but beyond that we will get involved. Hopefully it can be avoided.



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 09:45 AM
link   
These estimates are always way over and take into account absolute worst case scenerios. Of course this how right before Desert Storm the Pentagon was predicting 20,000 to 30,000 coaltion dead and ended up 190. So of course the reality comes as a relief and not the other way around. The Pentagon will never come out with low numbers because then they look bad. It is all part of the PR game.



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by ken10
 


The army ARE the civilians there, by and large. I'd hope we'd focus more on military assets, Command & Control locations, and focus on the infrastructure used to make war though, than troops.



Already targeted to be sure. There will be so much junk comming at NK in the first 48 that they wont even be able to lift their heads to see whats comming next. NKs will be running for China like scalded dogs.

NKs army will be spending more time trying to shoot their own citizens that are fleeing in one direction or another.



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by metaldemon2000
reply to post by kurthall
 


For starters, they are not rushing in there because they have a formidable military force and a war with NK will seriously deplete the US economy. ALso they need to be careful due to the close proximity to Russia and China. One little mistake and its WW3. ALso they need to seriously consider the nuclear capabilities of NK.

I did not say that the US should attack alone. If you read my post I said "It needs to be a JOINT UN effort" that does not mean that the US just goes in and attacks them. If you had read what I wrote you would know that. Unless Russia and China are no longer in the UN I would guess that would include them as well.
We have missiles and bombs that are very accurate and could take NK military out quickly and easily with minimal loss of life on our end. If you have been reading about Russia and China, they are fed up with NK as well. Therefore a JOINT decision should be reached in the UN and take NK down a notch together. More sanctions are not going to work.



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by sdcigarpig


I don't think that China will allow it to get that far this time, but if it does, they will probably set a perimeter as it did the last time. The first time they told the US and the general in charge (McArthur) not to come within 20 miles of the Yalu river, or it would be considered an act of war. McArthur chose to ignore such, and went up to the Yalu river, and that ultimately prolonged the conflict far too long than it should have been. Ultimately this time again, with the rhetoric starting up, China is setting up its forces and will probably tell the US, SK, and its allies, you can go this far, but beyond that we will get involved. Hopefully it can be avoided.



By the time China gets into it the US will be on a full war footing. China bringing in large units of men and armor.....would look like the highway of death in no time.

With China these days one may have to worry about them doing something crazy like a massive d-day type invasion by sea on the lower tip of SK. That would probably look like the highway of death as well but all the junk will be under water.



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 09:56 AM
link   
It would be the biggest humanitarian mess we have ever created. This will be defused before it gets too out of hand, it would be a lose lose situation for everyone otherwise.



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


If the US thought there was a chance of success fighting NoKo, it would have happened already....think of Iraq and Libya, even Syria is too good for the US to attack, hence the change of tactic to attack Syria from within using Mercs....But even that option is not available with NoKo.

Then you have the unknown while attacking NoKo namely China and even Russia !.....Believe, an attack against NoKo could quite easily trigger WW3, then the figures for casualties of 250,000 are nothing.



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
Casualty estimates are often grossly overestimated by the war planners.

That way, when the war is over, they can say... 'We only lost a tenth of the number of men that we anticipated, look how well we did'.


Odd, considering they predicted 5,000 deaths for the Iraq War.


Originally posted by MrSpad
These estimates are always way over and take into account absolute worst case scenerios. Of course this how right before Desert Storm the Pentagon was predicting 20,000 to 30,000 coaltion dead and ended up 190. So of course the reality comes as a relief and not the other way around. The Pentagon will never come out with low numbers because then they look bad. It is all part of the PR game.


Incorrect. The Pentagon's estimates for US troop deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq were both LOWER than what the actual total is.
edit on 8-4-2013 by Red Cloak because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by ken10
 


Well yea WWIII is the big question.

But as far as the rest....the US could have taken Syria and Iran out no problems. Just saying.





new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join