Possible war with North Korea

  • News
  • Thread starter Pattonias
  • Start date
  • #1
176
0
I'm wondering what kind of impact an outbreak of war will have on the American troops. Being in the reserves right now, I'm becoming nervous.

I honestly don't see how it can be avoided now. The North Koreans have begun to gird themselves, and the South Koreans and the US can't ignore or backdown from a deliberate attack on a warship.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
mgb_phys
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
7,819
14
Unlikely:

The army doesn't do jungles. Been there, didn't like it - not doing it again.

Reruns are never popular.

We are a little bit over committed at the moment. Even leaving out the military logistics you are going to be scraping the barrel for entertainers. Fighting a jungle war in SE Asia is bad enough - but imagine if the USNO concert is by David Hasselhof.

N Korea's major resource is Kimchi. "No blood for pickled Cabbage" looks silly on a protest banner.

Obvious place to outsource the job to is China. Seem to be having difficulty persuading China that invading 3rd world countries for their natural resources is part of being a free capitalist democracy.

So what can you do?
Admittedly sanctions are tricky when they having nothing anyone else wants (especially Kimchi) and nobody else has anything they can afford.
Best solution is probably the Cuba/East Germany model. Wait for dictator to die, regime falls apart then the population can move into the neighboring country and become petty criminals/hookers.

Remember this is a last gasp attempt by the N Korean government to get public opinion on it's side. The Americans invade and it's a "rally around the beloved leader to repel the foreign invaders".

It's like if you wanted to boost recruitment for any terrorist group the best way to do it would be to invade another country with no involvement and kill a bunch of civilians, then a large number of people switch from "those al Queda nutters are giving islam a bad name" to "they are our only hope to stop the evil Americans killing us all"
 
Last edited:
  • #3
1,497
4
From Wiki

According to the U.S. Department of State, North Korea has the fifth-largest army in the world, at an estimated 1.21 million armed personnel, with about 20% of men aged 17–54 in the regular armed forces.[64]

North Korea has the highest percentage of military personnel per capita of any nation in the world, with approximately 1 enlisted soldier for every 25 citizens.[65] Military strategy is designed for insertion of agents and sabotage behind enemy lines in wartime,[64] with much of the KPA's forces deployed along the heavily fortified Korean Demilitarized Zone. The Korean People's Army operates a very large amount of equipment, including 4,060 tanks, 2,500 APCs, 17,900 artillery pieces (incl. mortars), 11,000 air defence guns in the Ground force; at least 915 vessels in the Navy and 1,748 aircraft in the Air Force,[66] as well as some 10,000 MANPADS and anti-tank guided missiles.[67] The equipment is a mixture of World War II vintage vehicles and small arms, widely proliferated Cold War technology, and more modern Soviet weapons. According to official North Korean media, planned military expenditures for 2009 are 15.8% of GDP.[68]

North Korea has nuclear and ballistic missile weapons programs and has been subject to United Nations Security Council resolutions 1695 of July 2006, 1718 of October 2006, and 1874 of June 2009, for carrying out both missile and nuclear tests. North Korea probably has fissile material for up to 9 nuclear weapons,[69] and has the capability to deploy nuclear warheads on intermediate-range ballistic missiles.[70]
 
  • #4
mgb_phys
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
7,819
14
North Korea has nuclear and ballistic missile weapons programs and has been subject to United Nations Security Council resolutions 1695 of July 2006, 1718 of October 2006, and 1874 of June 2009, for carrying out both missile and nuclear tests. North Korea probably has fissile material for up to 9 nuclear weapons,[69] and has the capability to deploy nuclear warheads on intermediate-range ballistic missiles.[70]
It tested one underground device that was a partial fizzle, it's a long way from an Ivy mike type test to something that can be used on an ICBM.
As we have seen UN reports on 'rouge states' military capability can owe more to political expediency than technical accuracy.
 
  • #5
1,497
4
It tested one underground device that was a partial fizzle, it's a long way from an Ivy mike type test to something that can be used on an ICBM.
As we have seen UN reports on 'rouge states' military capability can owe more to political expediency than technical accuracy.

I don't think they would care about an ICBM at this point. All they have to do it drop one over Seoul which is close to border, or drop one close to US/Korean navy ships.
 
  • #6
49
2
It tested one underground device that was a partial fizzle, it's a long way from an Ivy mike type test to something that can be used on an ICBM.
As we have seen UN reports on 'rouge states' military capability can owe more to political expediency than technical accuracy.

I highly doubt it matters to South Korea that NK doesn't have ICBMs :rofl:. I honestly hate when people use that logic.

I would say a war with NK is highly unlikely however if it DOES occur and America got involved I feel safe in saying that it doesn't matter if NK had the world's largest army, they would still get stomped. They may over spend on their military and they might have a crap-load of people in the military but it's still peanuts compared to what a developed nation spends on its military.
 
  • #7
cristo
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
8,122
74
I would say a war with NK is highly unlikely however if it DOES occur and America got involved I feel safe in saying that it doesn't matter if NK had the world's largest army, they would still get stomped. They may over spend on their military and they might have a crap-load of people in the military but it's still peanuts compared to what a developed nation spends on its military.

I recall another war in recent history that the US entered into with that philosophy...
 
  • #8
49
2
I recall another war in recent history that the US entered into with that philosophy...

Which?
 
  • #9
176
0
I seriously doubt that North Korea would have the military support of China to fight on their side this time. I think the Chinese would allow the regime to fall and then insist the the US stop interfering.

The US's ability to fight conventional wars has never been in doubt. It's the unconventional that gives us problems. Without China fighting for them they would lose badly. Especially if they decide to use nuclear arms.

Thats not to say it would be an easy win, the fighting will be terrible. They just don't have the resources to win.
 
  • #10
4,488
73
On the political / grand strategic level, I agree with mgb_phys, there is little to prove and little to gain with another war. We should not seek it and inter-state conflicts With China's help it should be possible to prevent it. However there is an ally at gunpoint. South Korea, and it's not looking good.

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/south-korea/T8USE217FVKC3EKML

On the strategical level, things are not looking good for N-Korea. They appear to be rather vulnerable for a [URL [Broken] Warden III[/url] type of air strategy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
176
0
That is just it, the war would be against the regime. Their would be no other benefits. It would be in China's interest if they fought on the side of the South Koreans, if they want North Korea to remain Communist.
 
  • #12
174
2
So my question is who would be in the axis of evil and who would be the axis of good this time around?
 
  • #13
49
2
So my question is who would be in the axis of evil and who would be the axis of good this time around?

Why do you continue to post at these forums. :rofl:.
 
  • #14
176
0
So my question is who would be in the axis of evil and who would be the axis of good this time around?

It would be more like the ocean of good and the islands of evil. (From our perspective)
I think the only country that doesn't roll their eyes when talking to North Korea is Iran.
 
  • #15
174
2
Ya but the russians back iran/north korea to an point. Also I suspect china would side with north korea also. So if south korea and north korea go at it you could have russia and china supporting. And the US is likely to just sit it out so this could be leading to a big power play by china possibly? I'm sure china would love to get there hands on korea.
 
  • #16
142
1
got to wonder just how much food NK has stored up, and just how long they could sustain a war.
 
  • #17
176
0
Ya but the russians back iran/north korea to an point. Also I suspect china would side with north korea also. So if south korea and north korea go at it you could have russia and china supporting. And the US is likely to just sit it out so this could be leading to a big power play by china possibly? I'm sure china would love to get there hands on korea.

Thats just it, I think that the Chinese are just as likely to take over in North Korea as they don't want them slinging nukes on their doorstep anymore than they want them slaughtering the South Koreans.
 
  • #18
174
2
What makes you think china cares about the south koreans so much?
 
  • #19
176
0
The new emerging lead super-power can't be seen condoning the slaughter of a peaceful people in such a public way. They would also risk open war with the United States and her allies. You would actually see a possible WW3 if China sided with a near lunatic in a war. Their best options are to either stay neutral or to aid in a regime change. If they want North Korea to reamain communist, they need to make the regime change.
 
  • #20
174
2
Ok your right so how about the iran aspect? They might try something funny during this you think?
 
  • #21
176
0
I think Iran could only help by eithr providing aid, such as food and medical supplies; or they could help militarily by declaring war and openly attacking us in the middle east. I seriously doubt they would make the second move, but they will probably render aid through non-military means.
 
  • #22
49
2
The new emerging lead super-power can't be seen condoning the slaughter of a peaceful people in such a public way. They would also risk open war with the United States and her allies. You would actually see a possible WW3 if China sided with a near lunatic in a war. Their best options are to either stay neutral or to aid in a regime change. If they want North Korea to reamain communist, they need to make the regime change.

The thing is though that, I believe, most Koreans want a reunification. I think that South Korea with American backing would be the best bet at making this happening, they would be able to provide the most support to North Korea in order to rebuild it. This however wouldn't be in the best interests of China because then it would have a pretty important border with a really free democratic country. On the other hand, if China assisted in removing the current regime and putting in place a new one they would have to deal with A LOT of refugees.
 
  • #23
176
0
The thing is though that, I believe, most Koreans want a reunification. I think that South Korea with American backing would be the best bet at making this happening, they would be able to provide the most support to North Korea in order to rebuild it. This however wouldn't be in the best interests of China because then it would have a pretty important border with a really free democratic country. On the other hand, if China assisted in removing the current regime and putting in place a new one they would have to deal with A LOT of refugees.

That is where they have the advantage of being communist. They can say "if you cross this line, we will shoot"; unlike the US and the Mexican border. If they put in a puppet government, they can force the people to stay. If the people are treated better than they are now, they will have no reason to flee their country regardless.
 
  • #24
turbo
Gold Member
3,147
52
China's prosperity is tied to US trade and US-financed manufacturing. Would they risk that to support NK in a war against the South?

The US has risks in this situation, too, because we participated in trade agreements that let US manufacturers ship manufacturing jobs overseas to countries where wages are low and workers' rights are non-existent. How soon could we recover the manufacturing capacity that we had 20-25 years ago?
 
  • #25
174
2
Now that I think about it I bet obama finds a way to screw this up if anything. Not that bush wouldn't have done worse.
 

Related Threads on Possible war with North Korea

  • Last Post
2
Replies
49
Views
7K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
27
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
19
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Top