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

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.

thank you for the common sense
seems too many cannot grasp new war strategies

Originally posted by sean
The NK are fools and are playing a dangerous game. There is no need to put boots on the ground. The US has enough surplus bombs to drop on them till hell freezes over. Then if needed we can pull out the good stuff which will surely put an end to their reign.

Yeah, tough talk. But there are millions of brainwashed, ignorant people living in NK that have absolutely no idea what the west is like. It's not their fault that they were born into a hopeless regime. Your idea of bomb, bomb and bomb again will probably get rid of a lot of surface stuff, but the terrain will reduce the effect of any attack from the sky. Then the little monkey will crawl out from one of his secure bunkers and let loose on his own people. so your solution might save the lives of feet on the ground forces (and yes that is a good thing) but the head of the snake will still have heaps of venom to unleash on both forces going in to clean up and the inocent people of NK. I can'thelp but feel those people deserve better than being used as revenge fodder because of a not so well thought out attack.

imo, if the head of this corrupt regime is removed then the rest of the country could end up being very worthwhile global citizens (said with the risk of all of the global agenda conspirators aiming at me now).

so, a massive (and I mean massive) propaganda campaign followed by covert infiltration to take up the slack once the top is gone, then the execution (meant on so very many levels) of a master plan to rid the country of the real problem.

But what I can't get past is that this fool has been given a taste of what awaits his whole country. Heck, he has been given a western education and shown a philosophy that would allow him to bring his people out of poverty. He could be an absolute hero and turn around decdes of repression. Makes me think more and more that he is nothing more than a puppet for the generals.

reply to post by WeRpeons


I don't know if anyone truly knows where China stands on N. Korea except the Chinese leaders themselves. Some claim they have very strong links to the military and could take Kim out tomorrow without firing a bullet while others claim they don't have much influence at all. Regardless of this it's very possible China would prefer a crazy ally there rather than a unified Korea allied to the US and out of their sphere of influence. There is also the possibility N. Korea is being used as a proxy for Chinese expansionist interests. If you wanted to deny involvement on an attack on one of Americas allies and launch a war without directly risking yourself a proxy like N. Korea would be the best way to do this. It's not uncommon for superpowers to fight their wars through proxies.

reply to post by jacobe001

I agree. Any mention of pulling the troops out or refocusing our troops elsewhere was met with strong opposition because they felt that we had to finish what we started. The feeling back then was that if we left Iraq in the mess it was in then it would be worse than if we stayed.

A few said we should pull out, like this example in 2005:
www.washingtonpost.com - Hawkish Democrat Joins Call For Pullout...

...........
Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), a decorated Vietnam War veteran, said many of those troops are demoralized and poorly equipped and, after more than two years of war, are impeding Iraq's progress toward stability and self-governance.

"Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency," Murtha said in a Capitol news conference that left him in tears. Islamic insurgents "are united against U.S. forces, and we have become a catalyst for violence," he said. ". . . It's time to bring them home."
........
Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) declared: "Murtha and Democratic leaders have adopted a policy of cut and run. They would prefer that the United States surrender to the terrorists who would harm innocent Americans. To add insult to injury, this is done while the president is on foreign soil."

A few dozen other House Democrats have called for withdrawing from Iraq as soon as possible. But most are liberals who voted against going to war, and they have drawn modest attention. Murtha is a hawkish ex-Marine who voted for the war and has close ties to the military.
.........

Remember, back then pulling out was viewed as exposing weakness and submitting to terrorists.

The idea that we'll just drop some bombs and be done won't work.

That is a high risk number for a full-scale invasion of North Korea. Those numbers might not be so big if the US hangs around South Korea and picks off the invaders. The numbers might be in the millions if we sit back and wait for nuclear things to happen.

Still even after all that, I'm not sure where the writer Margolis got his numbers. Was it from this year, or from past year assessments of what war would cost? He doesn't specify. Consider if a quarter million soldiers don't go to North Korea there is no way to get that many casualties.

If that is the dead number, what is the injured number?

Now there is a Pentagon facing sequester looking at ways to save a buck; is it cheaper to make a veteran or lose a soldier? And I'm surprised that the Pentagon gave such a precise amount; what exactly was the formula for a number like that? There must have been a range in that estimate; maybe this is worst case scenario, which would be pretty good compared to tens of millions lost to nuclear problems.

How many dead North Koreans would the US get with sacrificing a quarter million soldiers? The numbers are impressive but I can't get a grasp on it unless I hear it in ratios.

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.

With out the Use of nukes, this is not an easy conflict by any means. The DPRK has a whole lot of underground installations, and there is less surveillance intel on the where abouts, as well as the movements of "those in charge" in the DPRK. This information is not impossible to acquire, but the operation will need boots on the ground. As much as many of us think the north is a starved desperate nation, like many communist nations, it's a better life in the army than it is on your own.

The North has loyal soldiers, who will likely fight whether or not Un is alive. Air superiority would absolutely be key, but there isn't exactly a group in the North that can take over with American support. The south doesn't have the necessary man power or equipment to do a land based invasion on their own. The US would absolutely be involved on the ground if a conflict breaks out in the region.

As with the past korean war as well as the vietnam war, much of the north is vegetation and the DPRK will absolutely use this to their advantage. Aside from carpet bombing the northern peninsula, It's going to be hard to find them if conflict breaks out. As well, a good portion of their key targets are buried underground. They could be found and hit with conventional weapons, but to truly clear these areas ground troops will be needed to "clean up."

If you really think the north can be taken solely from the air, it's just not the case. Iraq and Afghanistan needed boots on the ground. Libya had a rebel force to support from the air. There aren't any rebels trying to take over from the inside to support in the instance of the North.

reply to post by Agit8dChop


That's what I think as well.

Originally posted by kimish

Originally posted by xavi1000
Ok , but this is different level , This people are asians , fanatics in war , and more brave then white race . US in second world war must use two nukes to defeat Japs , this country is not a joke , my opinion that this country is not defeatable except if you exterminate them.

Do you have any links or other information as to why we should believe you? Or should we just take your word for it?
The two bombs that were dropped on the Japanese were dropped to put an end to things quickly. Mission accomplished.

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

Actually, he has a good point. The japanese had a leader they looked up at as god and were told we nuked them because there would have been millions of casualties had we not done so.
Why would north korea be any different where many look up to Kim jong as god.

I can hear the aftermath already from the apologist. We had to nuke north korea because they were not stopping their fighting and it saved lives in the end. We only lost a few cities in South Korea but it could have been worse if we did not nuke them.

Originally posted by g146541
Hmmm...
I dunno Bro, maybe if we started bussing Americans to N.Korea, unarmed and possibly frail then there might be a number that high.
You do realize that N.Korea is just above stone age with nothing really going for them other than "possible" allies?
Looks like more propaganda to make us fear "the reds"!!
Now that we are quickly running out of brown men...err...people to kill.

You do realize the current Korean service rifle is capable of defeating both US Issue helmets and body armor right?

A gun is a gun, It has bullets, you pull the trigger, it shoots those bullets. Boots on the ground are boots on the ground.

I know this is a TV show but it stacked equipment against each other.


(found a full vid if anyone is interested.)

They field an impressive weapon, and it absolutely can and will kill US troops given an engagement.

US troops are not super human, they make mistakes as do the DPRK soldiers, how ever as far as service rifles go, the DPRK packs a bigger punch, and has more Lethal range.

All those gadget's US troops carry on their person don't make them an instant win.

The North also has a significant arsenal of artillery, yes air superiority will help but it's not going to stop these pieces from making any kills. A direct hit from a 155mm Artillery piece will decimate the Abrahams. The US has impressive equipment but there is only so much you can advance to protect against.

Buried 155 shells set off by cellphones or 9volt batteries took out soldiers, humvees, trucks, APC's, and tanks alike in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that was with out the kinetic energy being fired from an Artillery piece.

I'm starting to sound just like the rest of the Chair generals, but this is nothing like the Libya waltz we saw not long ago.

reply to post by Gazrok


I hope you understand that those tactics you are referring came with a cost a cost that would make them utterly impractical, even if doable, on this particular situation. Any NK attack will collapse the South in the first day (consider the humanitarian crisis that being in the tip of a peninsula would cause, remember the exit from Vietnam it would be much worse). You have to consider the global picture, the economic dependencies, costs and supply lines) as any conventional would signify the US and South Korea losing the war without any guarantee that it wouldn't escalate out of control, any non conventional conflict would end in a nuclear exchange between the US and China (Japan or Taiwan would have low odds for survivability). The nuclear solution was not wanted in the past and today it shouldn't even be mentioned, and so South Korean will have to capitulate, to avoid utter chaos, much like South Vietnam did (even if for different reasons).

We talk today talk of sustainable economies, a war in South Korea is not sustainable, even if they could mount a defense the populational density and infrastructures would make it hellish..

Originally posted by Hijinx

Originally posted by g146541
Hmmm...
I dunno Bro, maybe if we started bussing Americans to N.Korea, unarmed and possibly frail then there might be a number that high.
You do realize that N.Korea is just above stone age with nothing really going for them other than "possible" allies?
Looks like more propaganda to make us fear "the reds"!!
Now that we are quickly running out of brown men...err...people to kill.

You do realize the current Korean service rifle is capable of defeating both US Issue helmets and body armor right?

A gun is a gun, It has bullets, you pull the trigger, it shoots those bullets. Boots on the ground are boots on the ground.
Yada yada yada...

You do realize what happens to bunches of guys with bullets and guns don't you??
If you are too young or just not in the know, google "highway of death".
It does not matter how many helmets your rifle bullet can go through if you have several bombs and missiles landing on you.
Wars are won through air superiority nowadays not trebuchets.
Go fear something real now please.

I'm not seeing any sources for your claim on the first page.Your thread should be tossed in the trash.

Just because that's what you think would happen,doesn't make it true.

Another star and flag fishing expedition I see.

Not to mention it's laughable that anyone thinks North Korea poses any type of threat to the US.

Seriously people,use your brains sometimes.

reply to post by purplemer


You and your North Korean brothers keep believing that.

I am sure that many of you are fully aware that should hostilities breakout, the conflict would primarily be a South and North Korean war. For the sake of the region, it would be essential that the conflict be contained to that understanding. If America attacked in defence of South Korea, by that principle, China could attack in defence of the North if it so wished, and would be justified in doing so. Kim Jung-Un knows that for any form of success, he would need China's participation. However, I do not believe China's heirarchy to profess any committment to North Korea's current leadership, but more towards the North Korean people and the usefulness of the country acting as a buffer zone to the encreep of western culture which is quite prevalent in South Korea.

Neither America nor South Korea will start hostilities, as any attack upon North Korea must be in way of defensive response, and not pre-emption, and it must also be proportional. It will be essential that Japan stays out of any response against North Korea, apart from defending herself from any missile attack. They will shoot down missiles, but should not take part in actually attacking North Korea as Japan's participation would most certainly bring China into play.

An all-out war will probably not occur, but it all depends upon the unpredictability of Kim Jung-Un. It would seem to me that everything he is doing is meant to pressure China into giving aid to North Korea to circumnavigate the sanctions against his country? These tactics will not curry him favour with China. They are tied to international agreements, and will not hurt their own international trade for North Korea, and especially not for its belligerent leader. So, unless Kim Jung-Un orders 'total war' with an all-out attack upon South Korea and American hardware in the region, war will not ensue from current tactics. Kim Jung-Un needs to draw a pre-emptive attack upon him, but it won't happen. He will continue to be provocative and threatening, and just being a general nuisance to everybody. The only real concern coming from Kim Jung-Un is if he carries through his nuclear threat, and if he did, even China would wash their hands of him.

America will not engage North Korea in a 'ground' war, that would be carried out by South Korean forces. American troops already in South Korea, will remain in South Korea, only American advisory personnel would be amongst South Korean forces. The only time American ground forces would be used, would be to repulse any North Korean invasionary force against South Korea. This would also bring into play American ships and proportional responses using cruise missiles, and jet bombers to establish air superiority in the region, which in effect they already have.

Kim Jung-Un's forces would be hit from the West, East and South, so any attack Jung-Un initiates would necessarily need to try and dominate or lessen such open avenues upon him, and frankly, I can't see him being able to do such a thing. His conventional forces would wither under overwhelming firepower and accuracy. His only ability to inflict costly damage would be to use whatever nuclear devices he has, and that would be suicidal.

Although the OP's reality check is decidedly more grounded than the hee-haws who think a few ICBM's would raze the rogue state painlessly; there is an aspect to an assault on NK that would differ decidedly form the recent Middle-East conflicts- press coverage.

That is, there would be little to no information streaming out of hermetically sealed NK were a conflict to arise, paving the way for a lot more 'collateral damage intensive' operation by the U.S. and its allies'. There would be little to stop those advertised B-2's from carpet bombing Pyongyang into rubble with impunity; and given the Kim cult's 'humanitarian' record, very few would care, anyway – most of the innocents are in outlying rural regions eating each other like zombies (literally). You sure as heck wouldn't have the bleeding heart parading injured civs on the nightly news and bleating about "innocent victims" in a Korean conflict as we have with the Middle-Eastern ones. This would only happen for the southern side, which the north would be wholly responsible for.

In other words, the full might of the West could be rained upon NK and there'd be nary a tether to hold them back. The biggest imposition for the West in counties like Iraq and Afghanistan is not the resilience of the enemy, as we're so often mislead to believe, but rather the near impossible tightrope that must be tread between vanquishing an enemy and maintaining an air of civility in the process and limiting innocent casualties – i.e., being forced to use a scalpel where a broadsword is in order.

Just think if it were permissible to carpet bomb, gas or nuke the Afghani-Pakistan mountain range... How long you think the Taliban would last? Not very, methinks.

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)

www.stevequayle.com...

Just a heads up. I have heard from my own sources that there have been things happening at Fort Ord in California too. The Naval base in San diego as well? Not sure what to think but have a feeling May is not going to go well, making plans to move my family into a less populated area and go camping!!

Originally posted by nightstalker78
I'm not seeing any sources for your claim on the first page.Your thread should be tossed in the trash.

Just because that's what you think would happen,doesn't make it true.

Another star and flag fishing expedition I see.

Not to mention it's laughable that anyone thinks North Korea poses any type of threat to the US.

Seriously people,use your brains sometimes.

edit on 9-4-2013 by nightstalker78 because: (no reason given)

It is BEING USED as a false flag attack on American soil. I would bet my life on it, just like the Gulf of Tonkin, I would wager that a U.S. Naval ship disguised as North Korean will fire a nuke towards the U.S.. N. Korea would not do that as it is obvious it would be suicide. So TPTB will get the party started FOR them. Read the link I posted above in previous post. Don't be stupid or ignorant of what the shadow government will do!!

Here is what I find ridiculous on the radio last week a so called war expert said even if Korea had a nuclear weapon they have no missile to launch it. Durr, are we forgetting that the first nuclear weapon ever used was dropped from an aircraft. This "war expert" said the Koreans would have to put it on a ship and sail it ie making a joke of the situation.

The fact is the Koreans can kit-out an aircraft to be invisible to radar and literally fly it to the destination and drop it!

reply to post by greatfriendbadfoe


So we should just continue to give them aid even though they threaten? Why should we care about NK's people when we don't even care about our own? I say no more aid till they dismantle their military and open their borders. Just like Ronald Reagan said, "Tear down this wall!" to Mikhail Gorbachev.

reply to post by fenceSitter


Pretty sure s a standing army would fall much faster. Being as they have bases,uniforms, trucks and tanks they arent hiding like rats.