War in the middle east and intervention debate

[Mercer]

oof, I personally don't think it would be that easy. America was at it's peak of cultural, and global power during the 1950's. That war was devastating, requiring a draft and loss of thousands of American lives. The Vet's described it as grueling because of the terrain, the weather, and the tenacity of those militant little fucks. I remember a story of them capturing/killing N. Koreans and instead of them having warm winter uniforms, they'd stuff newspaper into their summer uniforms and keep it moving. None of that has changed, the topography, the militant tenacity, and the cover provided by vegetation. America made the exact same mistake thinking Vietnam would be a cake walk.

 

Not every country on earth is as flat, free of vegetation, and impossible to defend from invasion as Iraq. We only ran into problems with urban warfare there but could control vast swaths of dessert with relative ease. Remember, the defender/local population always has a natural advantage, this combined with challenging terrain, and infinite hiding spots in the vegetation. I'm just assuming these facts make taking control of N. Korea at least 5-10x most costly (in terms of both money/lives) per square mile than Iraq.

[Dirty_habiT]

We could make a gun powder trail from Australia over to the trees in N. Korea..... then that would set their hiding places on fire.  Hiding in the bare mountains doesn't work as well.

 

I don't think losing lives is a thing that we'd have to deal with quite as much because we have drones that can kill using an xbox controller.  This is what I was alluding to about trying to drop troops into their borders to clean up the mess.  I don't think that would work very well because as soon as it started happening they'd just start killing their own citizens.  Like the kid in the neighborhood nobody wants to play with because he'll break his own toys so nobody can play.

 

Sure, warfare isn't "cheap" but we have a LOT of weapons already built/stored.... and I don't think the factories that build weapons are sitting idle right now.  They're expensive to make so if they don't make weapons and sell them then they're essentially costing money.  Like paying property tax on a house you don't use to live in and don't rent out.

[misteraven]

10 hours ago, Hua Guofang said:

Ah, what I wrote was misleading. It should have been written thusly:

 

The US lead forces couldn't defeat them in war in the 1950s and whilst the US would win a war today, the DPRK can make victory far too costly to consider.

 

1 - DPRK has a large artillery force ranged along its southern border that brings the capital Seoul into range along with a number of other sizable cities and towns. As soon as any conflict began you must expect thousands of civilians to die with indiscriminate targetting. It is what DPRK has held the West hostage with since the Cold War days.

 

 

Read all the details here:

https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/how-north-korea-would-retaliate#/home/error

https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/10/02/why-the-north-korean-artillery-factor-makes-military-action-extremely-risky-infographic/#1e938086317e

https://www.38north.org/2019/08/vvandiepen080619/

https://www.38north.org/2019/05/melleman050819/

 

2 - You're right, DPRK does not have a reliable delivery device for a nuke warhead. But it does have enough to give it a 40% chance of landing one on CONUS and much, much higher odds of hitting US forces in ROK/Japan/Guam/Hawaii. Put yourselve in the place of a US president and ask yourself if you'd like to be the guy responsible for triggering a nuclear attack anywhere in the world, let alone on US territory.

 

Read the details here:

https://www.38north.org/2019/02/melleman022619/

https://www.38north.org/2019/10/melleman100319/

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-49915224

 

 

3 - Sure, the society there is tinpot and shithole. But people are dedicated/brainwashed and the military is large with some relatively capable special forces that are trained in running a guerilla campaign in both the South and the North (It is known that there are a number of them already deployed in the South in case conflict kicks off).

 

4 - China would absolutely, 100% defend DPRK. They recently began building up their deployments in the region as a response to 'fire and fury'. China fears the refugee crisis a collapsed DPRK would cause, but most importantly, they fear having a land border with a US friendly country and will do everything they can to prevent it. Right now, their week point is Taiwan and the coastal approach. Should they lose the DPRK buffer they will have to split their forces between two approaches, which they obviously will not want to do.

 

Read the arguments here:

https://thediplomat.com/2018/07/china-and-north-korea-still-lips-and-teeth/

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/testimonies/CT400/CT477/RAND_CT477.pdf

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/07/opinions/china-north-korea-opinion-lind/index.html

 

Not all agree, though, some believe that China would let the Kim fall if they think they could have the strongest hand in shaping the govt of a unified peninsula:

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/asia/2017-12-12/why-china-wont-rescue-north-korea

 

 

 

 

Thats a more concise answer, thank you. I think you largely looped back to the point I was making... There's no real upside to wiping out the leadership of North Korea. They'll retaliate with a scorched earth policy to the south and indiscriminately kill as many as they can, because they aren't capable of much else. We have a vested interest in insuring that S Korea and Japan stay solid so we can maintain our base of operations in that theater, especially as China continues to grow into something formidable.

 

I think you (or your references) are giving N Korea far too much credit on your second point. Willing to bet the USA even lets that bullshit 40% number persist because it serves to keep another boogie man at the ready for industrial military complex and politicians eager to continue to consolidate power should the vast well of boogie men in the Middle East run dry. You know doubt understand that the further the distance, the exponentially more sophistication you need in a delivery system. Most of DPRK's missile tests end up bailing into the South China Sea. This is the same regime that is buying commercial drones off Amazon to retrofit into military applications. Meanwhile the USA has spent more on its military than the rest of the entire world combined for what, two decades already? Perhaps DPRK might get brave enough, or more likely, out of a last move of desperation attempt to lob some nukes towards conus... In return the USA shoots them out of the sky before they even hit the upper atmosphere and retaliates by vaporizing the entire northern peninsula with a volley of our own nukes. That'll happen either way, but should they get lucky and actually manage to slip a nuke in, it'll serve to catalyze the American resolve for generations to come. Also, fuck California anyways... Blessing in disguise on that one.

 

DPRK might have indeed brainwashed a lot of its citizens... Maybe all of them, but they're absolutely useless. I would doubt they even have the logistical capability to mobilize them effectively across their southern border. The worst thing about riling up China isn't so much that they're a significant threat... We pay them more per year in interest to the US debt they hold, than they spend on their own military, look it up... It's that entering into war with them will truly be WW3 and a dark era globally to which would change live amongst industrialized nations in ways that are almost impossible to fathom. They have more military might than most the countries you guys discuss and war game, but they have a long storied history of dropping the ball and having their asses handed to them. For a country that sat on gun powder hundreds of years before most of the world, invented the clock and so much more, they should have dominated the world before anyone else could wrap their heads around that idea. Instead they did nothing and let others come in and dominate. They have a lot of people, tons of infrastructure, lack of scruples and certainly the ambition, but I really don't think any military strategists holds them up as being capable of winning in a head on confrontation with the USA. It's laughable when you look at DPRK though that lens.

 

Something I'm not entirely sure you understand. Something I dont think anyone not intimately familiar with true American culture understands... War fighting is in the USA's DNA. No doubt Soros and his cabal are tirelessly doing everything in their power to undermine and dismantle that spirit, but our nation was born of war. The spirit of independence and the personal sacrifice to always defend it, still burns in the souls of most heartland Americans. Our society resonates with violence, likely because modern society has attempted to suppress that tendency but at the end of the day, for better or worse, Americans are confrontational by nature and have bred war fighters and a culture of warriors unlike any other nation on earth. We celebrate the Christmas Eve that General George Washington crossed the Potomac to slaughter the British because it captures the tenacity and fighting spirit that forged this country. The mythology of the USA is rooted in war and warriors and to this day, that spirit is evident throughout American culture. In many parts of the USA, the Gadsden flag is seen as often as the American flag. We still have states with mottos like "Live Free or Die" and "Come and Take It". There's huge swaths of the USA, such as the area I live where better than 50% of the population is armed as standard course when going about their day. Its not uncommon to give privilege to active and retired military even in liberal cities, but in the heartland, they literally give them the parking spots out front, discounts when they shop and celebrate them on a near daily basis. The picture I'm trying to paint to you is that even without the benefit of technology or a war machine unlike anything else developed by mankind, there's a soul to Americans that would see them waging war to destroy their enemy or go down in a blaze of glory trying that I genuinely do not believe exists anywhere else on earth. All of this might come off as brainwashing to people outside the USA, but spend a little time submerged in the American heartland and also take a look at our track record. Shit speaks for itself.

 

 

[misteraven]

1 hour ago, Mercer said:

oof, I personally don't think it would be that easy. America was at it's peak of cultural, and global power during the 1950's. That war was devastating, requiring a draft and loss of thousands of American lives. The Vet's described it as grueling because of the terrain, the weather, and the tenacity of those militant little fucks. I remember a story of them capturing/killing N. Koreans and instead of them having warm winter uniforms, they'd stuff newspaper into their summer uniforms and keep it moving. None of that has changed, the topography, the militant tenacity, and the cover provided by vegetation. America made the exact same mistake thinking Vietnam would be a cake walk.

 

Not every country on earth is as flat, free of vegetation, and impossible to defend from invasion as Iraq. We only ran into problems with urban warfare there but could control vast swaths of dessert with relative ease. Remember, the defender/local population always has a natural advantage, this combined with challenging terrain, and infinite hiding spots in the vegetation. I'm just assuming these facts make taking control of N. Korea at least 5-10x most costly (in terms of both money/lives) per square mile than Iraq.

Korea, Vietnam and even the Gulf wars suffered from mismanagement. You hear over and over that the mission was not clearly defined and we see over and over again how leadership makes these illogical decisions that run counter to winning wars as quickly and efficiently as possible. We could have toppled Saddam in the first Gulf war and likely avoided the second. Lord knows why the fuck leadership went against all opinion to seize all the ammo and equipment sites throughout Iraq, rather than allow the Republican Guard to devolve into an insurgency and have at all those munitions that bogged shit down ever since. At least unless you don the tin foil hat and consider that maybe the plan wasn't for a quick and concise war.

 

As (I believe) you were the first to mention in regards to Iran, America is unlikely to enter another ground war. Even if they lobbed a nuke at us... Even if they miraculously managed to get it to land on US territory, thereby catalyzing support even amongst someone like Trump, we're past that. Looking back at the invasion of Bagdad is almost like recalling the British lining up and marching across fields in a line. We can churn out Reaper drones all day every day and no doubt that whatever fucked up robots that Boston Dynamics can come up with, there's a small army of nerds at a DoD facility with endless budget to create something even more advanced and weaponized. We weren't outspending every other industrialized nation on earth with military budgets in the 1950s and it was too too soon after WW2 to just fly over another B-29 and Little Boy / Fat Man North Korea back into the stone age. 

 

DPRK would be a surgical strike. A wave of drones and smart bombs followed by targeted Spec Ops insertions and shit would be over. If it went sideways, we'd likely just level it into an irradiated glass parking lost considering the next option down is a MOAB and Trump has already shown that the largest bomb in the USA arsenal short of nuclear, is reserved for much more petty tasks... https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trump-drops-the-mother-of-all-bombs-on-afghanistan

[Kults]

Meanwhile, when Canadians go to war

 

 

 

[Dirty_habiT]

To Ravens point:

 

[Kults]

Spotted on r/Canada

 

Quote

You know what’s crazy? I am an Iranian and my people are absolutely furious right now. Not because of Trump, but solely because of the Iranian regime. We put 100% of the blame on the regime and we know there is absolutely ZERO excuse for what they did. And yet westernized liberals who think they know everything are speaking on our behalf and trying to put the blame on Trump. Just last month, this regime killed 1500 unarmed protestors in just 6 days, they didn’t give a fuck because they knew nobody could stop them. Do you liberals actually think they give a fuck about shooting this plane down? For all we know, they did it on purpose, because we know this regime has zero hesitation killing innocent people. Thank you President Trump for helping us gain a voice and fuck Justin Trudeau for using our tragedy as a political pawn to fight against Trump.

E: In response to this 

 

Quote

Without recent escalations, Iran plane crash victims would be ‘home with their families’: Trudeau

 

[Dirty_habiT]

^^You can't make that kind of stuff up.  Funny what the truth sounds like when the FNO **fake news orgs** hasn't put their spin on it.

[Kults]

2 minutes ago, Dirty_habiT said:

^^You can't make that kind of stuff up.  Funny what the truth sounds like when the FNO **fake news orgs** hasn't put their spin on it.

Straight from the horse’s mouth. Yet the libs will try to find a way. Cause, you know...

 

orange man bad

[Mercer]

1 hour ago, misteraven said:

Korea, Vietnam and even the Gulf wars suffered from mismanagement. You hear over and over that the mission was not clearly defined and we see over and over again how leadership makes these illogical decisions that run counter to winning wars as quickly and efficiently as possible. We could have toppled Saddam in the first Gulf war and likely avoided the second. Lord knows why the fuck leadership went against all opinion to seize all the ammo and equipment sites throughout Iraq, rather than allow the Republican Guard to devolve into an insurgency and have at all those munitions that bogged shit down ever since. At least unless you don the tin foil hat and consider that maybe the plan wasn't for a quick and concise war.

Disagree that these 4 conflics were even comparable to each other as to why they "failed". For one, I consider the 1st gulf war (1990/91) a complete success, and also consider the Korean war a success (to a lesser degree) considering the objective. There's no indication that our current administration has any advantages in military Strategy over the past, in fact, I'd say they have less military strategic expertise. That expertise and wisdom faded out with our last President with military/strategic knowledge: Bush Senior, who was a war hero himself and knew how to use the military to obtain a realistic objective without subjecting them to massive harm. Bush Jr., Obama, and Trump are imbeciles in "Strategery: by comparison.

 

1 hour ago, misteraven said:

 

As (I believe) you were the first to mention in regards to Iran, America is unlikely to enter another ground war. Even if they lobbed a nuke at us...

They land a nuke here and I'm still breathing, I'm going over there myself and have a feeling we might both end up on a plane/boat together with a few other people we know. There's no way we wouldn't decimate them with or without the official military if that happened.

 

1 hour ago, misteraven said:

Even if they miraculously managed to get it to land on US territory, thereby catalyzing support even amongst someone like Trump, we're past that. Looking back at the invasion of Bagdad is almost like recalling the British lining up and marching across fields in a line. We can churn out Reaper drones all day every day and no doubt that whatever fucked up robots that Boston Dynamics can come up with, there's a small army of nerds at a DoD facility with endless budget to create something even more advanced and weaponized. We weren't outspending every other industrialized nation on earth with military budgets in the 1950s and it was too too soon after WW2 to just fly over another B-29 and Little Boy / Fat Man North Korea back into the stone age. 

Drones are only effective to a certain point, and it's fairly straightforward how to take countermeasures against them. That's why our special forces took out Baghdadi, and Bin Laden, and not drones. They have clear limits, as well as manned planes, there's only so much they can see, or do.

 

1 hour ago, misteraven said:

 

DPRK would be a surgical strike. A wave of drones and smart bombs followed by targeted Spec Ops insertions and shit would be over. If it went sideways, we'd likely just level it into an irradiated glass parking lost considering the next option down is a MOAB and Trump has already shown that the largest bomb in the USA arsenal short of nuclear, is reserved for much more petty tasks... https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trump-drops-the-mother-of-all-bombs-on-afghanistan

This is where I disagree the most. Even in Iraq (2003) with current tech, zero vegetation, and almost zero topographical obstacles it still took a massive number of troops on the ground to eliminate the baathists or we would have never sent manned aircraft, and large numbers of ground forces in. We needs boots on the ground, kicking in doors, clearing houses, building, etc. Unless we just decide to commit unthinkable war crimes and indiscriminately murder all the civilians, this is the reality of the situation.

[Dirty_habiT]

Boston Dynamics is going to make a door kicking robot.... if they haven't already.  This is what I was trying to explain, the goat fucker gorilla masks out there in the sand are NOWHERE close to this level of technology.  Can they damage or destroy a few, sure.... are they going to be able to stop an army of terminators being piloted by 20 year kids w/ xbox controllers?  Nope, not a snowball's chance in hell.

[misteraven]

22 minutes ago, Mercer said:

Drones are only effective to a certain point, and it's fairly straightforward how to take countermeasures against them. That's why our special forces took out Baghdadi, and Bin Laden, and not drones. They have clear limits, as well as manned planes, there's only so much they can see, or do.

Drones weren't implemented in Iraq because to stabilize the region we needed Saddam to stand trial. They weren't implemented with OBS because they needed to verify the kill. They aren't a tool for every but they are hugely capable with new capabilities growing exponentially.

 

24 minutes ago, Mercer said:

Disagree that these 4 conflics were even comparable to each other as to why they "failed". For one, I consider the 1st gulf war (1990/91) a complete success, and also consider the Korean war a success (to a lesser degree) considering the objective. There's no indication that our current administration has any advantages in military Strategy over the past, in fact, I'd say they have less military strategic expertise. That expertise and wisdom faded out with our last President with military/strategic knowledge: Bush Senior, who was a war hero himself and knew how to use the military to obtain a realistic objective without subjecting them to massive harm. Bush Jr., Obama, and Trump are imbeciles in "Strategery: by comparison.

Fair enough, I largely simplified and skimmed in my reference. Point I was trying to make is that even during their time and especially since, we are able to recognize that a large part of what bogged those wars down was leadership not clearly defining the objectives to those on the ground and then making adjustments along the way rather than allow warriors off the leash. I especially hear this referenced by current warriors in regards to terrorism.

 

26 minutes ago, Mercer said:

This is where I disagree the most. Even in Iraq (2003) with current tech, zero vegetation, and almost zero topographical obstacles it still took a massive number of troops on the ground to eliminate the baathists or we would have never sent manned aircraft, and large numbers of ground forces in. We needs boots on the ground, kicking in doors, clearing houses, building, etc. Unless we just decide to commit unthinkable war crimes and indiscriminately murder all the civilians, this is the reality of the situation.

We do not need boots on the ground. We aren't going to get bogged down with an insurgency again unless its intended. It happened in the middle east because we made mistakes in the very beginning by allowing Iraq's troops to scatter and then later allowing them access to the very munitions and weaponry they trained with rather than immediately seizing those sites and destroying it. I'd also argue that the culture of DPRK is far different and that you'd be less likely to see the same thing happen there regardless. I'd be willing to bet that if you removed Kim and his immediate entourage, the rest of the people would probably be pretty relieved. DPRK doesn't have the issue with radical extremist religion or with clans that have been at war for eons. Entirely different dynamic out there, but would like to think we've also learned our lessons in the mid east.

[Mercer]

13 minutes ago, Dirty_habiT said:

Boston Dynamics is going to make a door kicking robot.... if they haven't already.  This is what I was trying to explain, the goat fucker gorilla masks out there in the sand are NOWHERE close to this level of technology.  Can they damage or destroy a few, sure.... are they going to be able to stop an army of terminators being piloted by 20 year kids w/ xbox controllers?  Nope, not a snowball's chance in hell.

I just think our focus should be on developing a higher standard of living here in the United States. I want to make it unaffordable for anyone without tons of money, or sponsors here to come over much like it's inconceivable for migrants to take foothold in (neutral) bSwitzerland realistically. All this talk of drones, and tech to take over the world sounds like poor planning, and inevitable bankruptcy to me. Have you given any thought to how much they charge per BD robot?

 

The rest of the world needs to work itself out, or not, either way it doesn't matter as long as we're good. Fuck em.

[Mercer]

4 minutes ago, misteraven said:

Drones weren't implemented in Iraq because to stabilize the region we needed Saddam to stand trial.

They were heavily implemented for the tasks they're intended for. They aren't intended to fight a war for us yet, and far from it now.

 

4 minutes ago, misteraven said:

They weren't implemented with OBS because they needed to verify the kill. They aren't a tool for every but they are hugely capable with new capabilities growing exponentially.

Agreed, but they still can't be trusted to take on the task of kill confirmation in a situation like this.

 

4 minutes ago, misteraven said:

 

Fair enough, I largely simplified and skimmed in my reference. Point I was trying to make is that even during their time and especially since, we are able to recognize that a large part of what bogged those wars down was leadership not clearly defining the objectives to those on the ground and then making adjustments along the way rather than allow warriors off the leash. I especially hear this referenced by current warriors in regards to terrorism.

OK so what would the end of the Korean war look like? A clear objective other than taking out Kim, and the military leadership. What are the chances that China would allow the U.S., or another democratic countries military to share a border with it? That's preposterous, they'd be either fighting us directly, or indirectly with the greatest urgency just like they did in Round 1. That's why Tibet is a huge deal for China, India is a massive threat in their eyes. You'd be hard pressed to take Tibet from China, or take over Nepal because that buffer zone is crucial to both of those superpowers. It would be like the U.S. and Russia sharing a massive border during the peak of the cold war with no buffer zone. That's why N. Korea is a big deal to them and why they've always protected hem. They may not like N. Korea but N. Korea isn't a military, or philosophical threat to the CCP. South Korea, and the United States are.

 

We also can't press a button and make every member of N. Koreas armed forces dead, these fucks will also scatter once the head is removed, and the insurgency would be supplied by China no doubt and we'd face a new Ho Chi Min, or Kim Ill Sung. Just like the baathist/Iraqi military, their military already knows they can't win a convention war, so they will almost certainly revert to Sun Tsu's suggested warfare model for defense until we're bankrupt or give up. There will be an insurgency, and Seoul will for sure take a major hit, thus fucking up the global economy. Again, we may have massive technological, and economic advantages but this doesn't invalidate the basic foundational laws of warfare.

 

4 minutes ago, misteraven said:

We do not need boots on the ground. We aren't going to get bogged down with an insurgency again unless its intended. It happened in the middle east because we made mistakes in the very beginning by allowing Iraq's troops to scatter and then later allowing them access to the very munitions and weaponry they trained with rather than immediately seizing those sites and destroying it.

What makes you think we'd not make a mistake this time around? This is an unrealistic position considering our current state of political affairs. IMO we're more inept now than we were just after 911, and the populous is less willing to engage/support a war.

 

4 minutes ago, misteraven said:

I'd also argue that the culture of DPRK is far different and that you'd be less likely to see the same thing happen there regardless. I'd be willing to bet that if you removed Kim and his immediate entourage, the rest of the people would probably be pretty relieved.

The Korean people (both N. and S.) have a much deeper connection to war than any Western Culture. They are warriors by nature, and even now many S. Koreans need to be trained on how to smile, and be friendly because warfare is so ingrained in their society. They will not be pacified by removing the regime.

 

While there are some people there that would be relieved of the regime was ended, these types are not/never were the threat. Think about it, the liberals here aren't. They can't shoot, fight, and tough it out compared to conservatives. Our liberals might even celebrate if a foreign power took out Trump, but the vast majority of the people that you for sure don't ever want to fuck with wouldn't. They'd fight to the death. Fuck, even I would and I don't even like Trump. It's the hard as nails, "Fuck the West" & "Fuck America" Koreans we need to worry about, and they're not just putting on a show.

 

4 minutes ago, misteraven said:

DPRK doesn't have the issue with radical extremist religion or with clans that have been at war for eons. Entirely different dynamic out there, but would like to think we've also learned our lessons in the mid east.

Communism is a religion IMO, and it's just as, if not more harmful as Islam in many cases.

[Hua Guofang]

12 hours ago, misteraven said:

 Most of DPRK's missile tests end up bailing into the South China Sea.

 

Meanwhile the USA has spent more on its military than the rest of the entire world combined for what, two decades already?

 

 

In return the USA shoots them out of the sky before they even hit the upper atmosphere and retaliates by vaporizing the entire northern peninsula with a volley of our own nukes. That'll happen either way, but should they get lucky and actually manage to slip a nuke in, it'll serve to catalyze the American resolve for generations to come.

 

 I really don't think any military strategists holds them up as being capable of winning in a head on confrontation with the USA. It's laughable when you look at DPRK though that lens.

 

Americans are confrontational by nature and have bred war fighters and a culture of warriors unlike any other nation on earth.

 

 

Re DPRK missiles - all of their tests go into the water, their country is too small for land based tests. Not the South China Sea either, they drop all of them into either the Sea of Japan or out into the Pacific Ocean. China and numerous other nations claim the South China Sea as soverign territory and would be pissed if DPRK was lobbing missiles into it. To see the DPRK missile arsenal as non-threatening is a mistake (they have the capability to cold launch from submarines, that's a big deal) https://missilethreat.csis.org/missile/pukguksong-3/

The longest range missile is still in development phase as an ICBM but has succeeded as an SLV: https://missilethreat.csis.org/missile/taepodong-2/

They numerous MRBM and SRBMs along with MLRS and other missile systems that are perfectly good weapons that can target a number of surrounding cities, some which are US allies and which host tens of thousands of Americans: https://missilethreat.csis.org/missile/no-dong/

 

Re US defence spending - not true, they don't spend more than the rest of the world combined or even close to that. They've recently increased spending, enough to match the next 8 countries combined - which is still a mega-fuckload - but nothing like more than the rest of the world: https://www.sipri.org/media/press-release/2019/world-military-expenditure-grows-18-trillion-2018

 

Re shooting DPRK nukes down - whilst they are not a fully tested ICBM and have a high chance of failure, so does the US ABM system. You have much more faith in the ability to shoot down ICBMs than those who manufacture and those who field those types of defences. You also might be cavalier abou the US eating a nuke, but it's not so easy when you're the one who has to be responsible for making that call and having the possible deaths of millions on your conscience. "The President who caused the US to be nuked", how many people are willing to go down like that in history, do yuo reckon?

 

Re China as a threat to the US - as I've tried to spell out previously, it's not whether you win the war that matters but how much it will cost to win. China has the ability to make victory extremely painful for the US (I mean, they also have nukes, if nothing else) at sea, on land, in the air and in space. Honestly, if you think otherwise I would very much like to see the reasoning for your position beyond "the US spends heaps on guns and would fuck them up".

 

To your last point about American culture, I think you need to get out a little bit more. The US already stalemated with DPRK/China, it happened even with this American warrior spirit you talk of. Secondly, consider that Europe, Middle East and East Asia have been civilised for about 5 times longer than the United States even existed. You think they were just picnicking that whole time? To think that your country is the only one that has faced adversity and has some kind of warrior ethos is immensley niave. I'd say even Israel, a much younger nation, has more of a warrior ethos than the US.

 

 

 

 

[Hua Guofang]

13 hours ago, misteraven said:

 

DPRK would be a surgical strike. A wave of drones and smart bombs followed by targeted Spec Ops insertions and shit would be over. If it went sideways, we'd likely just level it into an irradiated glass parking lost considering the next option down is a MOAB and Trump has already shown that the largest bomb in the USA arsenal short of nuclear, is reserved for much more petty tasks... https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trump-drops-the-mother-of-all-bombs-on-afghanistan

DPRK has modern air defences, how will the drones evede them? https://missilethreat.csis.org/missile/kn-06/

 

The US has little to no on the ground presence in DPRK (in terms of intelligence or assets), what intelligence would special operations forces use to giuide their actions when PY goes onto a war footing?

 

How would the US stop North Korea from launching tens of thousands of missiles on all of South Korea's northern cities, Japanese cities and US bases?

 

the last question should be answered first.

[Kults]

Just now, Hua Guofang said:

How would the US stop North Korea from launching tens of thousands of missiles on all of South Korea's northern cities, Japanese cities and US bases?

 

the last question should be answered first.

They wouldn't have to. They'd send them back to the stone age immediately following that.

 

The rest of your points are moot.

[Hua Guofang]

1 minute ago, Kults said:

They wouldn't have to. They'd send them back to the stone age immediately following that.

 

The rest of your points are moot.

If the US allowed the cost of business to be the capital of an allied city destroyed and hundreds of thousands of their people dead, they'd lose all of their allies in a heartbeat.

 

 

[Hua Guofang]

@misteraven@Mercer- I posted a lot of my stuff before I'd read Mercers and I agree with most of what he's said in regards to the way war can be conducted.

 

But as stated above, I think much of that even misses the very first point to be addressed, how does the US stop South Korea from being decimated (along with Japanese cities) before they finish the war?

 

How does the US make the cost of victory acceptable?

[Kults]

I highly doubt that.

[Hua Guofang]

33 minutes ago, Kults said:

I highly doubt that.

Doubt what, sorry?

[Hua Guofang]

3 hours ago, Kults said:

I highly doubt that.

Ok, understand what you're referring to.

 

What is the value of an ally that gets your capital city destroyed and hundreds of thousands of your citizens killed? That's not a security ally, that's a liability.

 

Even with Trump switching to a transactional mode of foreign policy Australia and other allies are questioning the worth of US alliances:

 

https://www.lowyinstitute.org/publications/australia-seeks-plan-b-trust-us-falters

https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/with-trump-at-large-australia-needs-a-plan-b-for-defence/

 

They're just two of many articles and books saying the same thing. I know that our main defence journal Security Challenges, has a whole special issue on Plan-B in copy edit.

 

If countries are reconsidering their partnership with the US because they don't feel like they can rely on the US as much as they used to, imagine how they would feel if they saw reckless US behaviour resulting in one of it's allies being totally fucked? Having an ally that gets you smashed is literally the opposite reason for having allies.

 

[Hua Guofang]

[Dirty_habiT]

8 hours ago, Hua Guofang said:

"The President who caused the US to be nuked"

This is more of the "you made me punch you" logic.

 

DON'T MAKE ME PUNCH YOU, DON'T MAKE ME PUNCH YOUUUUUUUU.....WHOOOPS THERE GOES YOUR TEETH!

 

If the other country that was attacked were smart, they'd pack up their soggy blood soaked vagina and stop trying to be bad ass.

 

There is literally nothing on this planet that USA couldn't obliterate if they wanted to.... period the end.  And who cares what happens when only Americans are left to rebuild.  We would completely destroy the cultures of these rat fried rice eating pieces of shit that think they're powerful in the world.  Fuck kim jong dong.  Then we would wash our hands of it, and rebuild.  The leader of our country would be seen as a hero that got us through the war victorious.  The leftists would be crying but we wouldn't care.  They'd have to sack up and help rebuild too.  I know this would be excruciating for them, having to work for what they have.

 

Only apologists will try to say stuff like "look at those poor terrorist protestors in Iran" after Iran got smacked down for their government being a bunch of beard stroking pieces of shit.

[Dirty_habiT]

8 hours ago, Hua Guofang said:

DPRK has modern air defences, how will the drones evede them? https://missilethreat.csis.org/missile/kn-06/

 

The US has little to no on the ground presence in DPRK (in terms of intelligence or assets), what intelligence would special operations forces use to giuide their actions when PY goes onto a war footing?

 

How would the US stop North Korea from launching tens of thousands of missiles on all of South Korea's northern cities, Japanese cities and US bases?

 

the last question should be answered first.

Too easy.  We'd drop EMP's all over the place and completely fuck their command structure... basically frying all of their electronics.  Those rockets surely don't run on carburetors and mechanical diesel fuel pumps.

If we were so worried about them shooting down drones, we'd just send some decoy drones in there with them.  Your argument is like saying we can catch every drug smuggler coming across the Texas Mexico border.  The Mexican cartels have been  VERY effective at continuing their business like usual despite our "best" countermeasures being in place.  Getting enough ordinance in to completely cook North Korea would be no problem.

[Dirty_habiT]

8 hours ago, Hua Guofang said:

If the US allowed the cost of business to be the capital of an allied city destroyed and hundreds of thousands of their people dead, they'd lose all of their allies in a heartbeat.

 

 

Doubtful.  Nobody like North Korea except other shit heads.

[Dirty_habiT]

5 hours ago, Hua Guofang said:

Ok, understand what you're referring to.

 

What is the value of an ally that gets your capital city destroyed and hundreds of thousands of your citizens killed? That's not a security ally, that's a liability.

 

Even with Trump switching to a transactional mode of foreign policy Australia and other allies are questioning the worth of US alliances:

 

https://www.lowyinstitute.org/publications/australia-seeks-plan-b-trust-us-falters

https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/with-trump-at-large-australia-needs-a-plan-b-for-defence/

 

They're just two of many articles and books saying the same thing. I know that our main defence journal Security Challenges, has a whole special issue on Plan-B in copy edit.

 

If countries are reconsidering their partnership with the US because they don't feel like they can rely on the US as much as they used to, imagine how they would feel if they saw reckless US behaviour resulting in one of it's allies being totally fucked? Having an ally that gets you smashed is literally the opposite reason for having allies.

 

The USA is tired of paying for our "poor friends" that don't help do shit.  At some point South Korea is going to have to "get good" just like everyone else is going to have to get good.  We should not be in the business of wiping everyone else's asses for them.  We can have trade deals, but in terms of I'm going to fight all your battles for you and make sure you're safe..... welp, I don't think that is something we should be doing anyway.  If South Korea wants to change their name to America Part 2 and be PART of America, then that is something different.

 

Here's the big problem though.  Many of the "allies" rely upon USA made weapons and aircraft for their own military.  They sure as shit shouldn't decide we're the enemy because that wouldn't go well.

 

I worked at Lockheed Martin and saw the F-35 prototype being built with my own eyeballs.  I talked with the engineers working on it and the fabrication managers in charge of these engineers.  I saw diplomats from other countries come over in huge teams wearing their palatial military regalia ooh'ing and ahhhh'ing at our F-16s they wanted to buy from us.  I'll help you with a little secret.  We don't sell aircraft, even to our allies, that are as good as the aircraft we keep for ourselves.  So even though they purchased F-16s from us, doesn't mean that our F-16s wouldn't smoke them in a fight should they decide they're no longer a team player.

 

It's in nobody's best interest to be an enemy of the USA with a president like we have.  This is a good thing, Obama let our country take it up the ass and I'm glad Trump grabbed Iran by the pussy.  A big part of this is that Trump doesn't "need" money like broke ass Brokebama did when he came into office with nothing.  So the desire to do underhanded dealings and take bribes, and sell shit to bad guys, send pallets of money, etc isn't there.  We actually have a leader that cares about the American people finally.

We'll do it to North Korea and whoever else wants to step up.  Kim song dong better just sit there and shut up unless he wants everything his dumb ass lineage has "worked" for destroyed.  The broom stick bo staff wielding anime nerds are picking a fight with a trained cage fighter.

[Kults]

28 minutes ago, Dirty_habiT said:

Here's the big problem though.  Many of the "allies" rely upon USA made weapons and aircraft for their own military.  They sure as shit shouldn't decide we're the enemy because that wouldn't go well.

/TheEnd

[Mercer]

The overconfidence in here is almost as bad as the climate that lead to the first Korean War. Mercer's going to drop a history lesson on the first Korean war because the talk in here is ironic, and should be framed with a little context. Not sure if any of you have any solid reference for this supposed walk in the park, other than MASH reruns. This is an interesting subject to read up on, so I'll break my version/understanding of events down to illustrate why it was, and would be a costly disaster for more than just Seoul, or Tokyo. History books are amazing because hindsight is usually 2020 (for most of us at least).

 

Much like the opinions in this thread, the decision to take action against communists, and intervene on behalf of the capitalist's in Korea was considered a no brainer, and was unanimously supported by both the pentagon, and politicians. They were just a few units of communist gorillas popping up that the Korean Army had trouble stamping out (nothing compared to DPRK Army). Korea itself was a backwards ass country, with a weak military. They were easily brought to their knees by the Japanese less than a decade ago, which was a country we just defeated, and ruled over in a relatively easy occupation. Should be a walk in the park, right?

 

We didn't even prepare with ammunition buildups, supply buildups, and basically everyone assumed we were facing a vastly inferior force that would just "give up" once we introduced them to our infinitely superior modern warfare  and techniques. Sound familiar? The first rule of warfare, is nothing is certain in warfare. Overconfidence by the superior force is the classic blunder that destroys Empires and constantly repeats itself because people generally don't know/forget history. Smaller, far less equipped fighting forces constantly crush much larger forces, so much so that it's a fairly regular occurrence. Think Imperial England VS the U.S. revolutionaries, Think Mujahideen VS the Soviets, the Vietcong etc. etc. etc. going back to Rome, and as far as the first written accounts of ancient warfare. Underdogs are often the safer bet. 

 

We roll into Korea with just two divisions we had stationed in Japan, and after getting essentially shut down (during the summer I might add when we should have advanced easily) we had to send two more. The two additional units were dropped in behind enemy lines at the end of the first summer near Inchon, an easy flank right? Well sort of, after dropping in one more Unit now totaling 5 army units we had the N. Koreans on the run to the Yalu river (Korean/China Border), dropping 2 more units before we got them there.

 

The Chinese red army was amassing across the River by then, then we were fighting both the Chinese army, and the DPRK army. 9 army units strong wasn't enough (here's a complete list of U.S. Army Units & Divisions for scale). Rangers, Special Forces, you name it, even the new armed forced division (U.S. Air Force). We were giving it everything we could spare by this point. The Soviets were sending in the newly developed Mig jet fighters (along some Russian with piloting them) while we still mostly used propeller planes with some Sabers in the mix. Shit got real, real quick, and we got pushed back herd to everyones shock, before sending more troops/resources and pushing back to the 38th parallel before the armistice that essentially paused the war which is where we still stand today (neither side considers it over). So many similarities to today, with China deploying stealth planes of their own, and being even closer tech wise to the U.S. then they were in the 1940's & early 50's.

 

 

This was the deadliest conflict of the Cold war with 3 million total killed (including civilians), with a confirmed 60,000 U.S. soldiers killed, and an additional 80,000 U.S. soldiers were lost in action or P.O.W.'d, and the wounded numbers of U.S. soldiers were well above 6 figures. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War Those numbers might not mean shit to you, but think about it, we only lost 3000 people on 911, 4500 in the Iraq war and we all know someone who's either dead, wounded, or suffering from PTSD now and those numbers are extremely small by comparison. Burying 60,000 of your best/brightest young men that are fit for duty, plus another 80,000 unaccounted for isn't even comparable. The Chinese can spare that many soldiers a day without even flinching or feeling it. Because of our population difference, even if we get a 50 to 1 kill ratio, we still fucking lose. I've already stated there's zero chance China would allow U.S. forces to share a border with it (which is why they entered the 1st Korean War).

 

Bringing things full circle, I think the commander and chief role is the most important job of a President, and you shouldn't even be eligible to become President without at least serving during peace time bare minimum. Clinton, Bush Jr, Obama, and now Trump have no idea WTF war is really about, none are experts and rely on the Military to basically explain everything to them. It's scary that Trump is probably as ill informed as most of us in this thread, thinking that the U.S. taking out North Korea now would be a walk in the park. Saying this to anyone with military expertise would be met with laughter. You really have no idea in terms of human suffering what it would cost us, and that is dangerous as fuck considering how gullible we are as citizens. Drones won't be able to stop a DPKR nuclear launch, they hide their completely mobile missile launch systems that can be easily moved, and easily concealed with decoys. If you read all this and still think it's going to be a walk in the park, well, I'm not surprised.

 

Sorry for the huge history lesson but it was the only way I could illustrate how mistake we are about the supposed cakewalk, and comparing DPRK to Iraq.

 

 

[Hua Guofang]

28 minutes ago, Mercer said:

 

 Saying this to anyone with military expertise would be met with laughter. You really have no idea in terms of human suffering what it would cost us, and that is dangerous as fuck considering how gullible we are as citizens. Drones won't be able to stop a DPKR nuclear launch, they hide their completely mobile missile launch systems that can be easily moved, and easily concealed with decoys. If you read all this and still think it's going to be a walk in the park, well, I'm not surprised.

Wanted to reiterate this. War is as fucked as fucked can get. Kids standing beside their dead parents not knowing what else to do other than cry. Mothers whoring themselves out to occupying troops to try and buy medicine for kids with limbs blown off. Men lying on the ground crying for their mothers as they bleed to death. War bravado is often the loudest from people who've never served and are unlikely to ever stand on a two way range.

 

I also don't understand how people might think that this war would be any different than those the US has fought since WWII. We just saw a re-run of the Pentagon Papers in Afghanistan - the same bullshit from the US govt during Vietnam is being repeated today and people think the next war will be different.....

 

Props to @Mercerfor knowing his history and understanding its importance.