Former deputy commander of U.S. Forces in Korea says "US could lose"

a reply to: TomLawless

The same way Iran has sold oil for years, despite the sanctions, and North Korea has exported military hardware and imported other goods despite the sanctions. There are always countries that will agree to abide by them publicly and ignore them privately.

And of course the infamous light water reactor deal that included fuel.

originally posted by: darkbake
I think I meant to say anti aircraft missile systems.

I kind of figured that but I didn't want to assume.

a reply to: DexterRiley

It goes even further than that. Some of the tunnels supposedly extend all the way to Seoul, they've got artillery positions cut into mountains on the other side of the DMZ that can hit positions on the Southern side of the border and then pull back into the mountain to reload. Then they've got entire air strips carved into mountains.

In the event of an attack, their Air Force will take off from conventional air strips and then land inside of these insane mountain bases they have. And then there are the hundreds of miles of tunnels and bunker complexes that they've been digging for decades where at the first hint of an attack, Kim and the entire command structure go underground which means that not only is the NK command structure virtually immune to even a nuclear attack, but we will have to endure a bloody ground invasion and then physically go into the networks of tunnels and bunkers. All of which, much like the tunnels going beneath the DMZ, have multiple entrances/exits for redundancy.

We might not "lose" and eventually get Kim like Saddam hiding in his spider hole but the cost in American lives will be extraordinary. And none of that factors in the level of destruction that South Korea will endure because Lil Kim may not really be able to hit the West Coast of the US but he certainly has enough balls to nuke the South and maybe even his own people if he thinks he's about to get caught and it takes out a significant portion of the invasion force which would cripple us in huge short term in terms of lives and equipment lost and the memory of that will cripple the psyche of the American people for a long time to come if something of that magnitude occurred.

We're not dealing with rational minds with either of the CIC's in the US or NK and it will not be the cake walk so many posters on ATS seem to think it would be.

originally posted by: darkbake
North Korea has 4200 tanks, while the United States seems to have closer to 1300. I found this information in a Google search. If the U.S. attacked North Korea, NK would probably shell civilian cities in South Korea, causing tens of thousands of casualties. NK also has anti-air guns that make air assaults nearly impossible without first invading on the ground.

Unfortunately, with no invasion, North Korea will probably keep on developing their nuclear technology until they can nuke the U.S. mainland.

You might want to take a look here. Theres some info on this site about who has what.
#1 United States: www.globalfirepower.com...
#23 North Korea: www.globalfirepower.com...

a reply to: johnjohn808


It’s a serious (and common) fallacy to compare all of the military assets of one country vs another and claim that to be indicative of any practical result. Especially so when comparing the military assets of the USA, which enforce a global empire, to the military assets of the DPRK, which would only be used within the Korean Peninsula.

Ever paid attention to the story of Spartacus’ Third Seville War in Ancient Rome? The slave rebellion grew strong and conquered much of the Roman homeland simply because the Roman regime had its legions fighting wars and holding territory elsewhere. And then the Roman Empire collapsed when it could not longer hold on to its own territories due to its failing economy, cultural obsolescence, and geopolitical realities.

originally posted by: 11andrew34
If there is a hot war in SE Asia, even a limited one, the US will lose all of its political goals, however it turns out.

All the host countries will rightly blame the US for being careless and causing millions of deaths. They will say that westerners don't care about Asian lives. At the end, host countries will demand that the US leave and China will be the regional hegemon for a century or more i.e. indefinitely.

This could not be understated. The USA continues to hold Old World racist attitudes towards the Orient (and “others” in general), which supplies them with the moral justification for the White Man’s Burden. Even here, it is common to see Americans post about Eastasia as if it is an extension of American ideals of Manifest Destiny.

During the first half of the 20th century, the USA was openly racist towards Asians, especially in regards to foreign, and imperial, policy. Half of the war against Japan was a paychological fixation on the “Japs” as being inferior.

The Korean War itself was a war initiated by the Americans under the pretext of fighting the spread of Soviet political influence; not a care was shared in regards to the people who actually lived there. And they remember it well, along with the horrors of the war and the continuing involvement of American imperialism dictating their affairs.

It is simply astonishing to view the American perspective as to demonize these people and advocate for their annihilation through nuclear weapons, while at the same time claiming they would be doing it with moral superiority and ethical responsibility. I’m sure that the Asians remember the last time that the Americans nuked them and have quite the opposite opinion.

And what’s even worse is that the Americans will probably end up nuking somebody before they wake up to the consequences of their actions by the international community. Nobody wants to see nukes used pre-emptively or aggressively, except Americans.

a reply to: TheStalkingHorse


We aren't the ones shooting missiles over Japan or threatening to nuke random nations. NK has not only threatened the US, but it has threatened with nuclear strikes: SK, Japan, Guam, Australia, Baltic states, and more.

We have a duty and obligation to prevent the rogue and precarious (could collapse at any time: they're communist) regime from acquiring weapons which could change the strategic balance of power. It would trigger an arms race, with dozens of other nations acquiring nuclear weapons under the same precedent NK did it: because they can.

I have no doubt we will pursue diplomatic paths to result in total disarmament of WMDs and an end to the hellish Kim regime. If they do not willingly take proscribed measures, then we should (since we're still at war) preventatively decaptitate the regime and disarm them by force.

If they attempt to retaliate in desperation, we then have an obligation to prevent as much damage as possible to our allies. North Korea isn't our ally. Japan, SK, Guam, etc are allies. Our duty is first to them. Any retaliation would be met with overwhelming and decisive force.

I am firmly of the belief that we will collapse the regime by spreading truth and knowledge to its people, however. Internet access would accomplish this, but so would any number of other ways. As soon as they lay eyes on SK, they'll realize their communist dream is BS and their communist brainwashing was nothing but lies.

The people of NK deserve liberation, and the right to determine their own destiny. They should not be subject to the cult-like regime of Kim Jong-un, forced to worship the ground he walks on or else. The "else" consists of anything from public shaming to anti-aircraft gun executions, prison camps and mass-murder or torture of entire families.

To stand by and do nothing is to support the violence and genocide against the NK people. To do nothing is to give our approval to despots and dictators who use any justification to deprive innocent people of their basic rights.

Apologists for tin-pot dictators make me sick.

a reply to: TheStalkingHorse


It is absolutely appropriate, especially when even one of our nuclear submarines could crater the entire country.



Obviously this isn't ideal. But to even imagine there is a scenario in which NK is victorious is quite frankly delusional.

This guy's EYES must be brown or he wasn't read in.
I recall VERY well how ,according to such 'experts",I was going to face a 50% attrition the moment I arrived for Desert Shield because I and my fellow vets were NOT blooded in war and Iraq had the 4th largest army on the planet.
Sounds like another REMF who talks too much.

a reply to: JBurns


I know Kim is a bit different then most leaders in this world. But he is not threatening to nuke random nations. He is pritty specific about who is on he's target list. And there is got to be a reason for that, no one threatens to nuke random nations base on nothing. As long as we/you are being served our western propaganda i guess that is the view most westerners have. I think NK get served a very different one.

a reply to: spy66

WOW.... so BEING IN a declared WAR in ceasefire wasn't a clue?

a reply to: spy66


Did you miss the end of the post or something?

As soon as they lay eyes on SK, they'll realize their communist dream is BS and their communist brainwashing was nothing but lies.

The people of NK deserve liberation, and the right to determine their own destiny. They should not be subject to the cult-like regime of Kim Jong-un, forced to worship the ground he walks on or else. The "else" consists of anything from public shaming to anti-aircraft gun executions, prison camps and mass-murder or torture of entire families.

To stand by and do nothing is to support the violence and genocide against the NK people. To do nothing is to give our approval to despots and dictators who use any justification to deprive innocent people of their basic rights.

Apologists for tin-pot dictators make me sick.

a reply to: DerBeobachter

Well it started with beaurocratic liberal retards not letting us win in Vietnam. There is no three countries on the planet that could stand up to an all out east by the US. Or ability to project power goes way beyond anyone else.

Jaden

originally posted by: rickymouse
Just blow away kim and give North Korea to China. let them set up someone to run the place, someone who has to be approved by the UN to make sure another Kim does not come back in power.

This ! seems to me that this idea is a bloody winner.
why not?

originally posted by: rigel4

originally posted by: rickymouse
Just blow away kim and give North Korea to China. let them set up someone to run the place, someone who has to be approved by the UN to make sure another Kim does not come back in power.

This ! seems to me that this idea is a bloody winner.
why not?

It is too practical, it will never happen. You cannot have governments doing practical things, it will set precedence and everyone will expect our government to make wise decisions in the future.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: TheStalkingHorse


It is absolutely appropriate, especially when even one of our nuclear submarines could crater the entire country.



Obviously this isn't ideal. But to even imagine there is a scenario in which NK is victorious is quite frankly delusional.

Except that It's not a very wise or realistic move to launch from a sub because then you have to worry about Russia or China mistaking it as a threat against them and initiating a retaliatory strike. If we were dumb enough to use nuclear weapons against the N. Koreans, it would have to be from the air with B-2's. And then there's the whole international outrage thing is we were to he nuclear weapons against N. Korea without their use of them first. They're supposed to be a deterrent, not a first strike platform.

a reply to: peter vlar


Unless they were to launch from the water near the word "carries" in the info graphic

Regardless, this would be last resort. We will work with Russia/China to disarm them, my guess anyhow

a reply to: JBurns

I'm not quite as certain about that as you are. Any sub based launch in that area is going to at least put everyone on standby and at worst, end with someone who does have the capability of hitting all of the continental US knocking at our door with Armageddon.

From everything I've seen and people I've spoken with, the brunt of any initial strike agains NK appears as if it will be carried out by the Air Force. I'm just wary of the entire scenario. I've seen enough blood to last me a life time and if something this big occurred, I imagine that another draft will occur and my son will be eligible in a little over 2 years.

I'd prefer he get to live as normal a life as possible and not be a bitter, crippled man when he hits his 40's like me lol. I enlisted in my own so I don't blame anyone for that. I'd just like him to have a say in the matter and the way the rhetoric is bouncing around at the moment, it's all very sketchy.

Keep in mind, this isn't going to be like going into Iraq. Saddam hadn't been preparing for war with the US for over 60 years. N. Korea has. The civilian population may be destitute and starving and their equipment might be second hand and third rate, but all of their money has gone into defensive position, underground bunker complexes that stretch for miles and even our biggest bunker busters aren't going to get them all. Were in for one hell of a bloody fight if we tackle that crazy bastard.

a reply to: peter vlar


Well said, sir.

The only thing worse is allowing this regime to build its capabilities further. Quite frankly, this should have been taken care of 20 or 30 years ago.

a reply to: JBurns

This could have been dealt with 65 years ago had we not made them an international pariah and essentially cut them off from the world and isolated them from everyone but China and the USSR. Or if we hadn't renigged on every deal we've made in the past few decades... Sadly, all of our Monday morning quarterbacking is pointless and we're stuck cleaning up our grandparents messes and the hand we've been dealt is a Nuclear armed N. Korea who has managed to advance their program by about 30 years in the last decade. They're getting help and a lot of it, from someone.

Regardless of how we approach this, an armed conflict will lead to the loss of millions and perhaps tens of millions of lives on the Korean Peninsula, Japan, likely China if things go the nuclear route as well as US territories in the Pacific like Guam. Estimates I've seen range from 7-12 million and that's likely a conservative number that could move up or down depending on the type of conflict we end up engaging them in so who knows what kind of casualty numbers we would realistically end up seeing.

One thing we can be certain of is that civilian casualties will be unprecedented in modern history so personally, I would much prefer a diplomatic solution to this. Though with our current CIC needing to demonstrate his lack of impotence and need to engage people in the international community as a child via twitter, I think that window is all but closed. Hopefully we can find a peaceful solution that includes halting N. Korea's nuclear program but sadly I think that degree of hope is quickly waning.