The next Theater of War

I've been thinking about this for a bit, and want to hear other people's opinions on where the next war will be.

Iran- Unlike Iraq the government is much more of a theocracy, and also unlike Iraq the leaders aren't hated across the arab world. A much wider reaching global "net", leaders who aren't criminally insane, and the fact that there is (in all likelihood) going to be a democratic revolution in the next ten years combine to make this a probable no-go. Though they are a threat, especially in their funding of terrorist networks.
My rating:

North Korea- I really hope we're not anywhere near crazy enough to attack NK. A huge, well equipped, well trained standing army. Hostile terrain which would negate many of our tactical advantages, like smart bombs, add up to give this the makings of a huge casusalty count on both sides. And did I forget to mention they have NUKES?! They do, and even thought they share technology it would probably be easier to just take out Iran to negate the axis of evil trade network.
My rating:

Syria- heres one thats doable. The fact that it has a coastline gives us an ingress point that could easily be taken and used. It has the potential to have a large army that would be poorly equipped and trained. And it does have proven ties to terrorist networks. Our tactical armnaments would also be highly effective in this situation. Big problem, much like post-war Iraq, religious insurgency would create a large guerilla force against occupation. They would also probably fight to the last for Damascus.
My Rating:

France- A people that have proven that they have no problem surrendering, a small, though well equipped military, and rich food and smoking ensure an easy capture of France. As a plus we would gain a foothold in Europe so that we can at last enact our plan of a "magnificent sweep" across Europe and Asia.
My rating:

Originally posted by Dreamstone
North Korea- I really hope we're not anywhere near crazy enough to attack NK. A huge, well equipped, well trained standing army. Hostile terrain which would negate many of our tactical advantages, like smart bombs, add up to give this the makings of a huge casusalty count on both sides. And did I forget to mention they have NUKES?! They do, and even thought they share technology it would probably be easier to just take out Iran to negate the axis of evil trade network.
My rating:

Actually, North Korea isn't as powerful as people seem to think. Sure, they have lots of manpower & tanks, chem/bio-weapons and possibly the bomb. NK's problem is, that nearly all of their equipment is obsolete by modern standards. Most of their airforce would be shot down from the skies in the first few hours of the war.

Still, an attack would be a huge risk. The outcome of the war is clear (US & ROK forces spank the hell out of North Korea) but the cost would be huge, both economically and in civillian casualties.

Originally posted by Dreamstone
France- A people that have proven that they have no problem surrendering, a small, though well equipped military, and rich food and smoking ensure an easy capture of France. As a plus we would gain a foothold in Europe so that we can at last enact our plan of a "magnificent sweep" across Europe and Asia.
My rating:

LOL TEH FRENCH SUXORZ LOL!!!11

The thing with North Korea is not that they are as strong as they would like us to believe.Its that with all of their heavy artillery guns that they have near the border , they could completely annihilate the 37 000 U.S troops stationned in the DMZ in less than an hour.Not to mention that they can also wreak havoc on Seoul and Japan.Thats why its a big risk to attack them.There are no doubt that the U.S would win a war with NK in a short time , but the causalties would be high.All of this crisis will depend on one thing very important : the attittude of China toward NK.I think that only them can push NK to make compromises.

The next theater of war will be coming to a neighborhood near you....

N. Korea....no
Syria...no
France...not even worth the effort.
Iran...no
Terrorism...yes, but the world must unite against this. One or two nations can not win this war....it will require the world nations to recognize and unite to end this....this is the current "theater of war" and will continue to be so for some time.

regards
seekerof

[Edited on 9-11-2003 by Seekerof]

Am I limited to those four choices?

Ok, seek answered my question the next war would in a country in africa maybe zimbabwe, it would be a short war thou.


The n.korean military lost a lot of strength in the last 20 years, their fighter pilots aren't as well-trained, they are now poorly equip., and some of their soldiers are starving even with the reserves of food. However, spending a lot of time with korean culture and their country I know that it would be a long,devastating war. Knowing korean politics that war will probably never happen, at least I hope so.

The U.S., like stated, would win in NK without a second thought, though many civilian, economical, and soldiers would be lost. France! Im all up for that LOL!
Iran...don't think we would go there, just that it hasn't been hyped up as much. Zimbabwe? Where did that come from? lol. Somali? Does anyone think the U.S. would ever enter into Somali again?

-wD

Let's see....

Iran-Can't win, causes more terrorism

Syria-Can't win, causes more terrorism

North Korea-Can win, great loss of life

France-Can't win, they have nukes. Also, they are our allies and France-haters are idiots.

Terrorism-Can't fight with military power, used as an excuse to take away our civil rights and start imperialistic wars (shovel money into the corporation's pockets).

WHEEEE! That was fun!

The answer, is right here in the USA.

You didn't think the Patriot Act, designed over the last 10 years, was really out to stop foriegn terrorists, did you?
Allowing the government to track online movements, emails, credit cards, bank transactions and library withdrawls....come'on...do you really think Al-Queda keeps a web site?
Its about tracking us, and the web pages we visit, the emails we send and the purchases we make.
Dissedent Americans are the only real threat to the system now....and dont forget that the Patriot Act allows Bushie, Rumsfeld, Cheney et al, to make anyone into an "enemy combatant" whenever they feel like it.
That means you have no rights whatsoever and there is NO congressional oversight to that power at all.
The patriot act passed 98 to 1
How do you feel about you "duly elected representatives" now???

Have fun kiddies...for there is no friend anywhere, anymore

Jesus.... If the patriot act wont work, then what will? What do YOU reccomend we do to 'beef up security'?.... OH, now I remember...there are no terrorists, it was the Bush administration that caused 9-11......
In all seriousness... I dont think another war is likely. There is no way the public would go for it. Also Iraq is expensive enough as it is. I'm not sure we could really afford one. I would say though that the theater of war isnt going (not that it ever was) to be contained to one country. It is everywhere. It is terrorism, and thus can happen anywhere.

Syria for sure....i just hope i doesnt start in North Korea...then all helll will break loose, nukes will be used. But i think US is too scared to attack NK because of the nukes and that US now that they will use them...what do thay have to loose???? I just hope Bush understands this. I dont think Bush can ask them to take away there nukes if US is not ready to do so themselfs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

hmmm, I was under the impression that NK's army was far better equipped than that. Maybe I'm wrong, I'll look into it.

You're not limited to the list, wherever you think the next war will be.

I'm pretty sure there will be another war. As said before, the war on terrorism will come to us, and then we will have to take the war to the terrorists. A vicious cycle...

I say We take New Zealand Out

Those cocky bastards .. got it comin

One more LOTR film and thats it

Saudi Arabia....

The stage is already being set.

1. Nationality of the 9/11 hijackers.
2. Cutting of long-standing ties with the US.
3. Having always been known as a terrorist funder, it's now getting more out in the open....
4. Pulling out of troops.
5. Random terror attacks against the leadership, as the US isn't leaving fast enough.
6. They've got lots of oil...
7. They're in bed now with the three biggest suppliers to terrorists (i.e. Russia, France, Germany)....
8. Strategic location (central in the mideast, and right between our new friend Qatar, and new bases in Iraq).
9. Troops already right near there, as well as carriers, supply lines, etc.
10. All it will take is one more big attack from Saudi nationals....to win US public support....

Yeah... I think I might support a war in Saudi Arabia even without another attack. Well...not anytime too soon..I really think we should finish up Iraq and Afghanistan first.

Originally posted by WeBDeviL
Zimbabwe? Where did that come from? lol. Somali? Does anyone think the U.S. would ever enter into Somali again?

-wD

Honestly, I based it on my intuition. The terrorists are likely to gain a stronger foothold in chaotic places. That and the fact that the media doesn't report on africa much (how much did they report on the middleast besides Iraq? on pre-9/11), I get the feeling we would have a conflict there.

It won't have to be zimbabwe, I was using it as an example. It could be any african country.

Thats all on my intuition, absolutely no logic.

Originally posted by Dreamstone
hmmm, I was under the impression that NK's army was far better equipped than that. Maybe I'm wrong, I'll look into it.

You're not limited to the list, wherever you think the next war will be.

I'm pretty sure there will be another war. As said before, the war on terrorism will come to us, and then we will have to take the war to the terrorists. A vicious cycle...

To give you credit, some believe n.k. special forces team are well-equip. south koreans found out from the infiltrations that the n.k. special ops. have western made gear.

To paradigm

NK's problem is, that nearly all of their equipment is obsolete by modern standards. Most of their airforce would be shot down from the skies in the first few hours of the war.

No offense, but it's pretty clear from what you wrote that you have absolutely little to no knowledge of military tactics or warfare doctrine whatsoever. To say that most of their air force would be shot down in the first few hours is totally ludacrous. First of all, just because they're North Korean doesn't mean they're stupid. They have as much of an organized ability to deploy air power the same way we do. Your assumption is they'll just fill the skies and do nothing right. The only way a Turkey Shoot will ever happen is if they don't do anything and just fly patterns or mindlessly fire their weapons. Granted, the Korean People's Air Force is technologically inferior to the U.S. Air Force. But technology does not win wars. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Vietnam War are clear examples.

In fact, North Korean pilots would almost own American pilots. U.S. pilots rely heavily on firing missiles from long ranges. Korea is a small country, however. A fighter lifting off from South Korea during a war would have only a couple of minutes before it's engaged in air combat. Just enough time to fire ONE missile. North Korean fighters will take away the advantage of missiles by forcing these close-in dogfights and by filling the skies with fighters. The Combined Forces fighters (U.S., South Korea, Japan) would outnumber the North Korean aircraft by at least a factor of 2-1. But 2-1 is a very small margin. In fact, in Vietnam, the U.S. fighters outnumbered the North Vietnamese Air Force 5-1, yet they were still defeated in air battles. A war in Korea is tailor-made for close-in dogfights. Medium to long-range missiles are absolutely useless. Short-range missiles would have limited effectiveness as well. While their MiG-21s aren't as powerful and sophisticated as F-15Cs and F-16Cs, they are smaller and lighter, meaning they are much quicker when turning or rolling. The F-15C's empty weight alone prevents it from making the tight turns any Soviet-built fighter can easily make. Thus it would be very difficult to get a lock with a short-range weapon, so they'd have to resort to guns. Eastern combat pilots are just better when it comes to in-your-face get-down-and-dirty dogfights. Their training is based on the little, basic things like speed and agility, not speed, radars, and boom-boom missiles.

Disappointing as it is. U.S. pilots have always been at a disdvantage. It's just that we have not seen a massive air war since World War II. Even then, the German Luftwaffe and the Japanese were better than us. But Vietnam clearly showed, quality of forces don't win wars. It's how well they use those forces that determines victory. In Iraq, the Iraqi Air Force simply did not use anything to it's advantage. It tried fighting like the Americans, and it lost big. North Korea is not Iraq. Their training is better, and contrary to popular belief, they are not stupid as to become sitting ducks. Get behind it, NK is as strong as they say.

[Edited on 10-11-2003 by sweatmonicaIdo]

On the other hand, no war has been won solely in the air. (This doesn't count for bombing of the ground) I would think that carriers would give us a distinct stand-off advantage, and B-52s carrying cruise missiles would easily take out North Korean Ground targets if they didn't scramble their fighters to protect. And THEN we would launch long to medium range missiles. I'm just theorizing. I make no claim to be a air war expert.

We have advanced in strategy and tactics. I guarantee you that they pentagon has recognized this problem and has come up with several possible solutions. Contrary to popular belief they're not stupid either.

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
To paradigm

NK's problem is, that nearly all of their equipment is obsolete by modern standards. Most of their airforce would be shot down from the skies in the first few hours of the war.

No offense, but it's pretty clear from what you wrote that you have absolutely little to no knowledge of military tactics or warfare doctrine whatsoever. To say that most of their air force would be shot down in the first few hours is totally ludacrous. First of all, just because they're North Korean doesn't mean they're stupid. They have as much of an organized ability to deploy air power the same way we do. Your assumption is they'll just fill the skies and do nothing right. The only way a Turkey Shoot will ever happen is if they don't do anything and just fly patterns or mindlessly fire their weapons. Granted, the Korean People's Air Force is technologically inferior to the U.S. Air Force. But technology does not win wars. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Vietnam War are clear examples.

In fact, North Korean pilots would almost own American pilots. U.S. pilots rely heavily on firing missiles from long ranges. Korea is a small country, however. A fighter lifting off from South Korea during a war would have only a couple of minutes before it's engaged in air combat. Just enough time to fire ONE missile. North Korean fighters will take away the advantage of missiles by forcing these close-in dogfights and by filling the skies with fighters. The Combined Forces fighters (U.S., South Korea, Japan) would outnumber the North Korean aircraft by at least a factor of 2-1. But 2-1 is a very small margin. In fact, in Vietnam, the U.S. fighters outnumbered the North Vietnamese Air Force 5-1, yet they were still defeated in air battles. A war in Korea is tailor-made for close-in dogfights. Medium to long-range missiles are absolutely useless. Short-range missiles would have limited effectiveness as well. While their MiG-21s aren't as powerful and sophisticated as F-15Cs and F-16Cs, they are smaller and lighter, meaning they are much quicker when turning or rolling. The F-15C's empty weight alone prevents it from making the tight turns any Soviet-built fighter can easily make. Thus it would be very difficult to get a lock with a short-range weapon, so they'd have to resort to guns. Eastern combat pilots are just better when it comes to in-your-face get-down-and-dirty dogfights. Their training is based on the little, basic things like speed and agility, not speed, radars, and boom-boom missiles.

Disappointing as it is. U.S. pilots have always been at a disdvantage. It's just that we have not seen a massive air war since World War II. Even then, the German Luftwaffe and the Japanese were better than us. But Vietnam clearly showed, quality of forces don't win wars. It's how well they use those forces that determines victory. In Iraq, the Iraqi Air Force simply did not use anything to it's advantage. It tried fighting like the Americans, and it lost big. North Korea is not Iraq. Their training is better, and contrary to popular belief, they are not stupid as to become sitting ducks. Get behind it, NK is as strong as they say.

[Edited on 10-11-2003 by sweatmonicaIdo]

A long and well articuled post, quite in rarity in the internet

But, basically yeah, I don't have any experience in army tactics or doctrines. That will probably change, though; I'm starting my military service in January.

I know that techonolgy isn't everything. But I still think that the outcome of the war would be a defeat for NK's forces. The question is, would the US consider the war worth over 100 000 GI casulties and way over million civilian deaths. No to mention possible attacks on Tokyo or other large cities in Japan by NK.