War: North Korea vs. U.S. (and South Korea)?

[Urban hermit]

China must weight the advantage of supporting NK against the harsh reality of the present economic situation in China.
South Korean auto makers and electronic companies do a lot of business in China, Samsung, Kia, Hyundai, all have products made in China.
Japan likewise has many products made in China as do many American companies.
Many nation buy raw materials from China to be used in manufacturing.
At the same time all of these companies market products in China. As we are all aware, China markets many products around the globe.
What does NK bring to the table?
China doesn't need NK. But without trade with the nations NK is constantly threatening China's economy would tank.
It comes down to the bottom line, Walmart is more important to China than NK today.
This wasn't the case 40 years ago, but it is the reality today.

[EastFront]

Originally Posted by BELGRAVE

It's not really "abuse",I think, but legitimate sensitivity and an expression of concern.
While agreed this is a forum primarily concerned with military matters it should never be forgotten that an end result of any conflict is misery, death and destruction.
Surely you must realise that gleefully decorating your iniitial posting with a dancing banana ,is rather akin to dancing on the graves of the victims:-should the war you happily seem to anticipate actually happen.
That said , I think that General Mattis is the key to US involvement. He ,more than any other, should be in the best position to judge North Korean real capabilities and intentions.

I created this thread to spark fascinating speculation and debate on the seemingly inevitable coming war between the US, South Korea and North Korea (and possibly China). For people to use their military and political intelligence in projecting possible scenarios.

To suggest that I "happily seem to anticipate" that war is an obscene exaggeration. And to imagine the dancing banana icon, which was meant to entice vigorous debate, as "dancing on the graves of the victims" sounds like a paranoid extrapolation. Others here have responded to my strategic military challenge intelligently, without making these major leaps of faith. I hope we can all do so going forward.

That being said, I agree that Defense Secretary James Mattis is a major player in this drama. As he said in London a couple of weeks ago,

"This is a threat of both rhetoric and growing capability, and we will be working with the international community to address this,” he said. "We are working diplomatically, including with those that we might be able to enlist in this effort to get North Korea under control."


It also appears from the latest news that Vice President Pence is traveling to gather a coalition of countries (Japan, South Korea and China) to solidify a coming US military strike. My guess is it will take 3-9 months to organize attack plans and get all the troops and hardware into place. Then a terrible conflagration will take place, unless North Korea backs down (which is doubtful).

[BELGRAVE]

Originally Posted by EastFront

I created this thread to spark fascinating speculation and debate on the seemingly inevitable coming war between the US, South Korea and North Korea (and possibly China). For people to use their military and political intelligence in projecting possible scenarios.

To suggest that I "happily seem to anticipate" that war is an obscene exaggeration. And to imagine the dancing banana icon, which was meant to entice vigorous debate, as "dancing on the graves of the victims" sounds like a paranoid extrapolation. Others here have responded to my strategic military challenge intelligently, without making these major leaps of faith. I hope we can all do so going forward.

That being said, I agree that Defense Secretary James Mattis is a major player in this drama. As he said in London a couple of weeks ago,

"This is a threat of both rhetoric and growing capability, and we will be working with the international community to address this,” he said. "We are working diplomatically, including with those that we might be able to enlist in this effort to get North Korea under control."


It also appears from the latest news that Vice President Pence is traveling to gather a coalition of countries (Japan, South Korea and China) to solidify a coming US military strike. My guess is it will take 3-9 months to organize attack plans and get all the troops and hardware into place. Then a terrible conflagration will take place, unless North Korea backs down (which is doubtful).

Okay ,but I can't see how a dancing banana can " entice vigorous debate", at least ,in the manner that you wish to encourage. There's nothing whatever lighthearted about a serious contemplation of a possible war.

[EastFront]

Uh-oh. Looks like we're getting close to a major conflagration. China has put their bombers on 'high alert'.

My guess: China attacks from the north, and the US and South Korea attack from the South. Then they split North Korea between them to keep a buffer zone between China and South Korea.

Today's CNN top story:

"US official: With eye on North Korea, China puts bombers on 'high alert'. "

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/20/politi...ina/index.html

[EastFront]

Excellent article on what a US first-strike against North Korea would look like!

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/11/politi...rst/index.html

Highlights:

"Mark Hertling, a retired US Army general and CNN analyst, said the tens of thousands of US civilians, many of them military dependents, would first need to be evacuated from South Korea."

"When you see dependents beginning to leave South Korea and Japan, then you realize that North Korea is very close to crossing red lines," Sen. Graham said on Thursday."

"As US and allied aircraft take out priority targets from the sky, American warships would launch a barrage of Tomahawk missiles concentrated on North Korean missile sites, air defense systems and response corridors capable of launching a retaliatory nuclear weapon, Hendrix said."

"Within minutes of initiating the attack, US aircraft and artillery assets would also be forced to coordinate with allied forces to destroy the thousands of North Korean missile tubes pointed directly at the South Korean capital of Seoul."

"And that would just be the beginning."

"The US would also need to, at very least, inform China of any potential strike -- putting them in a position where they know military action and communicating the expectation that they have to stay out of it."

*********************************************

I think the US will need to 'coordinate' the attack with China, to have them invade from the north. We would then split North Korea in two, with China occupying the north, and the US & South Korea taking the south. Then the US would eventually phase out its presence and leave that whole region to the South Koreans and Chinese. This is because the Chinese do not want the US military on their border.

What do you think?

[johns624]

You missed the news where China said that they would defend NK if the US and SK did a preemptive strike. If NK attacks first, they would remain neutral. It sounds like they are enjoying the way that their selfmade village idiot is acting. With our huge trade with China, there's not a lot that we can really do about it.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/08...rea-first.html

[Imperial]

Originally Posted by johns624

You missed the news where China said that they would defend NK if the US and SK did a preemptive strike. If NK attacks first, they would remain neutral. It sounds like they are enjoying the way that their selfmade village idiot is acting. With our huge trade with China, there's not a lot that we can really do about it.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/08...rea-first.html

Equip South Korea or Japan with nukes (or encourage them to research/develop them on their own) and watch China squirm.

[johns624]

Originally Posted by Imperial

Equip South Korea or Japan with nukes (or encourage them to research/develop them on their own) and watch China squirm.

That's actually a decent idea. Play tit-for-tat.

[Half Pint John]

Question:

IF the Nork's fire first, attack CONUS, does this bring NATO into the game?

[johns624]

I would say yes, but how much actual assistance they would be able to give us is another story. I think it would be us, the ROKs and maybe the Japanese and Australians.

[ljadw]

Originally Posted by johns624

I would say yes, but how much actual assistance they would be able to give us is another story. I think it would be us, the ROKs and maybe the Japanese and Australians.

The assistance of the Roks is no longer unconditional.

[ljadw]

Originally Posted by EastFront

Excellent article on what a US first-strike against North Korea would look like!

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/11/politi...rst/index.html

Highlights:

"Mark Hertling, a retired US Army general and CNN analyst, said the tens of thousands of US civilians, many of them military dependents, would first need to be evacuated from South Korea."

"When you see dependents beginning to leave South Korea and Japan, then you realize that North Korea is very close to crossing red lines," Sen. Graham said on Thursday."

"As US and allied aircraft take out priority targets from the sky, American warships would launch a barrage of Tomahawk missiles concentrated on North Korean missile sites, air defense systems and response corridors capable of launching a retaliatory nuclear weapon, Hendrix said."

"Within minutes of initiating the attack, US aircraft and artillery assets would also be forced to coordinate with allied forces to destroy the thousands of North Korean missile tubes pointed directly at the South Korean capital of Seoul."

"And that would just be the beginning."

"The US would also need to, at very least, inform China of any potential strike -- putting them in a position where they know military action and communicating the expectation that they have to stay out of it."

*********************************************

I think the US will need to 'coordinate' the attack with China, to have them invade from the north. We would then split North Korea in two, with China occupying the north, and the US & South Korea taking the south. Then the US would eventually phase out its presence and leave that whole region to the South Koreans and Chinese. This is because the Chinese do not want the US military on their border.

What do you think?

It is unlikely that SK would want even one suare km from NK .

[ljadw]

Originally Posted by EastFront

I created this thread to spark fascinating speculation and debate on the seemingly inevitable coming war between the US, South Korea and North Korea (and possibly China). For people to use their military and political intelligence in projecting possible scenarios.

To suggest that I "happily seem to anticipate" that war is an obscene exaggeration. And to imagine the dancing banana icon, which was meant to entice vigorous debate, as "dancing on the graves of the victims" sounds like a paranoid extrapolation. Others here have responded to my strategic military challenge intelligently, without making these major leaps of faith. I hope we can all do so going forward.

That being said, I agree that Defense Secretary James Mattis is a major player in this drama. As he said in London a couple of weeks ago,

"This is a threat of both rhetoric and growing capability, and we will be working with the international community to address this,” he said. "We are working diplomatically, including with those that we might be able to enlist in this effort to get North Korea under control."


It also appears from the latest news that Vice President Pence is traveling to gather a coalition of countries (Japan, South Korea and China) to solidify a coming US military strike. My guess is it will take 3-9 months to organize attack plans and get all the troops and hardware into place. Then a terrible conflagration will take place, unless North Korea backs down (which is doubtful).

Doom and gloom .

[Escape2Victory]

Originally Posted by Half Pint John

Question:

IF the Nork's fire first, attack CONUS, does this bring NATO into the game?

Given the US commitment to Europe, I think NATO would have to help if the US was attacked and requested NATO assistance. What help could be given in that theatre in rapid response is another matter.

[Pruitt]

I would not expect to see anymore help than what they sent in 1950-53. I doubt the Philippines has an Armor Battalion anymore, but most of NATO should be able to send Infantry.

Pruitt