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

reply to post by WhiteAlice


Whats your point? Wars not messy? You A vet? I wish I had been in your war, then.

The point being, they pull the trigger we follow up...hard.

Originally posted by IknowJack
reply to post by WhiteAlice

 

Whats your point? Wars not messy? You A vet? I wish I had been in your war, then.

The point being, they pull the trigger we follow up...hard.

Nope, but my grandfather was and I grew up on his stories. He was sent to the Korean War in the winter of 1952 and found it to be a logistical nightmare primarily due to the terrain and getting supplies to the front line was incredibly difficult. My grandfather talked about how hungry the soldiers were when he arrived there to help work on a new logistical plan. He passed away several years ago and that's doubly a pity because it'd be good to have some Korean War vets talking about this subject here. War is messy, every time, but this one was a disaster. That's not just my opinion. That's our army's opinion. Heck, the Pentagon doesn't want to go there. Why do you think they chose to delay the Minuteman III test launch?

Originally posted by Red Cloak
Since this forum is so gung-ho about a possible USA versus North Korea war, we should actually talk about reality here, and not the fantasies and delusions that abound in all the discussions. You know, the "let's turn them Chinese and Koreans into glass" geniuses that dominate all these discussions.

Let's talk about reality. Like how the Pentagon's own simulations and estimates show 250,000 US dead if another full scale war between North Korea and the USA takes place on the Korean peninsula.

The reality of what this would mean is far different from the delusions that are being talked about here in these forums (like, "USA will destroy them Koreans in an hour").

edit on 8-4-2013 by Red Cloak because: (no reason given)

Have a link for the source of your info?

Originally posted by fenceSitter
reply to post by Red Cloak

 

I have to agree with you on this one. I don't think many people actually grasp the realities of war - especially one with North Korea. Besides the great loss of life on both sides, consider the economic consequences. What about a full scale cyber attack? I think an all out war would be felt on the US mainland and not necessarily with a physical missile attack.

For those who think the US will runover North Korea... remember we are only a few weeks away until the 10th aniversary of this great moment...

If it takes over 10 years to 'win' a war against Iraq and the Taliban - how do you expect to 'crush' one of the largest militaries in the world? They may not have the most advanced weaponry but they are better equipped that IEDs and suicide bombers.

It didn't take 10 years to win the Iraq war; Saddam's army was decimated VERY quickly. If our objective was to beat Saddam, we did it rather swiftly. Our objective, however, became nation building.

After you topple any power structure you can expect there to be a vacuum of clashing gangs and organizations vying for power.

Basically, we could have gone in, kicked Saddam's ass, and pulled out, and the whole process would have only taken us months (excluding the manhunt for Saddam). Unless we plan on sticking around and committing to nation building in North Korea, it won't be a prolonged war.

Originally posted by Red Cloak

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)

You keep posting but provide nothing to back up your statements.

reply to post by Bilk22


A few people tried. Like another poster, all I found was the aforementioned Margolis link. Margolis is a journalist--not somebody working for the Pentagon. The title is different from what Margolis said though...he used the term "250,000 casualties". Casualties include wounded, missing and captured along with dead. The number doesn't seem to be that inaccurate though for potential casualties as we had over 109,000 casualties in the Korean War of the 50's (see my post with links for source from US Army on that figure). Last time, North Korea was basically saved by the Chinese sending in troops so that the UN forces were severely outnumbered. This time, North Korea may have a huge military to begin with as they have been intensely militarized since then.

But as for actual Pentagon source for Margolis' casualty figure--I couldn't find it.

reply to post by WhiteAlice





Okay, war stories.....there are vets still around. My Stepdad included (bio father died in Korea) and half a dozen ,including ,one from Chosin, who live in my town. All would go back in a heartbeat to finish what NK/China started when they wern't satisfied with the division of occupied japanese territories. Its funny how the US tends to pull peoples butts out of the wringer and we turn around and get punched in the face.
You darn right it was a logistical nightmare. What war wouldn't be when you get sneak attacked by "your friends" only have a few troops in country and the nearest fighting force is a bunch of admin troops in JAPAN! GOD bless the American fighting man, any other group of soldiers would have been totally rolled up day 1!
We didn't throw the first punch last time and doubt we will this time...but I wonder if 60 years from now the US will get blamed for this.

war stories and revisionist history..gotta love how they become fact.






nk

Originally posted by Red Cloak


Let's talk about reality. Like how the Pentagon's own simulations and estimates show 250,000 US dead if another full scale war between North Korea and the USA takes place on the Korean peninsula.

250,000 dead Mickey Mouse lovers. Oh noes!!!

reply to post by IknowJack


Well, part of the logistical mess was the terrain of North Korea, itself. Between that and the Chinese moving into N. Korea, it made it extraordinarily ugly as our troops were basically being caught in narrow passes. A land war in North Korea, between the possible size of their current military and that still present terrain, would be nasty. In that sense alone, it should be a non-starter. An aerial war would have questionable efficacy as North Korea has been constructing large underground bunkers. Dropping a nuke = we'd just anger the international community and really make the countries in Asia mad and it'd be not very beneficial to our allies in South Korea either.

I can understand how some would want to go back and try to win. The Korean War was a bit of an ego blow, which is really part of the reason why it is the "Forgotten War". We did really great stuff in WWII (not counting Hiroshima and Nagasaki) and that was a great source of pride for us. Being forced to back out of Korea, not so good for national pride. Even if we didn't win, disrespecting what our servicemen went through in Korea through forgetting the war, itself, is just not right. They gave it their best in a pretty hostile mess. Think you and I would agree on that one.

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'.

I would disagree.
Just like with the Iraq war, optimism of cost and losses was exaggerated in order to sell the war.
The Bush Administration also only wanted to hear from people that said what they wanted to hear in regards to their plans.

With the Iraq war, regime change plus nation building was the overall goal, and the losses and costs with this in mind far exceeded the estimates they started with.

news.brown.edu...

“Nearly every government that goes to war underestimates its duration, neglects to tally all the costs, and overestimates the political objectives that will be accomplished by war’s violence,” Crawford said.

The Costs of War project involves 30 economists, anthropologists, lawyers, humanitarian personnel, and political scientists from 15 universities, the United Nations, and other organizations. In 2011 the group released figures for a range of human and economic costs associated with the U.S. military response to the 9/11 attacks. It estimated the total combined costs of the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan at $4 trillion and total direct war casualties at minimum oft 330,000 men, women, and children.

Wouldn't it be nice if the Pentagon would just take a page out of corporate America's playbook and just outsource the war?

"Private Johnson, we're tired of you complaining about having to kill children. I'm afraid we're going to have to let you go. This is Habib, your replacement from India. He speaks 'real good' English and he will kill people for half of what we pay you. You have two weeks to train him, then turn in your uniform."

250, 000 dead American military personnel in a war with North Korea. Not only is this estimate unrealistic, there is no substantial or significant source for this information. Additionally, I tend not to believe end of the world scenarios or anything else considered significant from members with a WATS score less than 10. Just saying...

Here is the current mentality difference between North Korea and U.S.A./South Korea.

Everyone now in North Korea:



Mean while, everyone in U.S.A and South Korea:

reply to post by truthseeker84


lol omgosh, I totally did not expect that dubstep like drop in the middle of that song. Was wondering what would happen if those two worlds would collide and found this:



When they pan over the NK present, they are so stoic throughout it that it's funny. Must've been unnerving for the band.

With the way they would fight the war yes I see many dead. The way the war should be done is another story yes there will be death it's what war causes.
We simply shouldn't enter North Korea with ground forces. But rule the air and take out any military targets. Do this for as long as it takes. Before long they won't have anything to threaten anyone with.
We don't need ground troops to make them a non-threat.

Originally posted by Miracula

Originally posted by Red Cloak


Let's talk about reality. Like how the Pentagon's own simulations and estimates show 250,000 US dead if another full scale war between North Korea and the USA takes place on the Korean peninsula.

250,000 dead Mickey Mouse lovers. Oh noes!!!

Show some respect.

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy

Originally posted by fenceSitter
reply to post by Red Cloak

 

I have to agree with you on this one. I don't think many people actually grasp the realities of war - especially one with North Korea. Besides the great loss of life on both sides, consider the economic consequences. What about a full scale cyber attack? I think an all out war would be felt on the US mainland and not necessarily with a physical missile attack.

For those who think the US will runover North Korea... remember we are only a few weeks away until the 10th aniversary of this great moment...

If it takes over 10 years to 'win' a war against Iraq and the Taliban - how do you expect to 'crush' one of the largest militaries in the world? They may not have the most advanced weaponry but they are better equipped that IEDs and suicide bombers.

It didn't take 10 years to win the Iraq war; Saddam's army was decimated VERY quickly. If our objective was to beat Saddam, we did it rather swiftly. Our objective, however, became nation building.

After you topple any power structure you can expect there to be a vacuum of clashing gangs and organizations vying for power.

Basically, we could have gone in, kicked Saddam's ass, and pulled out, and the whole process would have only taken us months (excluding the manhunt for Saddam). Unless we plan on sticking around and committing to nation building in North Korea, it won't be a prolonged war.

You're forgetting the Taliban part of the post you're responding to !......You are now stuck in a no win situation where you are now paying the Taliban not to kill your soldiers..... NoKo would be another Vietnam.

Originally posted by VictorVonDoom
Wouldn't it be nice if the Pentagon would just take a page out of corporate America's playbook and just outsource the war?

I like your suggestion.
Since it seem many politicians with their trade policies, business men and bankers favor China more than the US, perhaps they should ask China to to do all their fighting as well?

China is right there and it would be more cost efficient for the Chinese to undertake it.
Less fuel, supplies humans to transfer across the world.

Also, we could bring all our troops home since there is no profit in it for us.

Originally posted by metaldemon2000

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by Red Cloak

 

I'd like to know what kind of battle plan that is based on. Any US commander who thinks to put boots on the ground in NK is an idiot who should be stripped of his stars. That is hardly needed to achieve the objective, i.e. regime change. We'd only see casualties like that if we marched right in, which would be rather stupid, given the other tactics available to us.

Regime change will do nothing. Most of the people alive in NK today have been raised to hate the west. The war wont end when the regime does. Im sure NK understands this. Killing Un might even drive the NK military and people to fight harder.

The minority elite hate the West, however i am sure the political prisoners in the concentration camps and ordinary North Koreans once they taste freedom and learn they have been lied to will not. Especially when food aid in the form of rice starts being sent direct to the people and not the army. The Truth Will Set You Free! I know western democracy has its faults but jeesh that is better to the hellhole and nightmare of North Korea right now.

reply to post by fenceSitter


Didn't the little drunk come out with some profound statement like "we have prevailed"?
You guys lost heaps of young yank (as did the Iraq people) that should never have happened. That pathetic little moron along with rumsfeld and cheney, took you down a terrible path.