The next Theater of War

It is the classic question: Is the risk worth the reward? In this case I really don't think so. Any war with aa nuclear power brings about the risk of a nuclear strike on your city, or a city of your allies.

I'm also very curous on how troop casualties are calculated. I remember seeing anti-war placards stating over a half million civilian deaths in the first hour. We now know that that was wrong, but how did they come up with the figure. War is such a variable game, I don't know how they could calculate such numbers.

SweatMonicaIdo(nice tag) what is your basis for the "eastern pilots are better" thought. I don't know of any evidence for this, considering that the latest war you backed this up with was Vietnam, and out tactics and training have definitely advanced since then. You did have a good point regarding plane construction, our fighters do have some traits of being "tanks of the sky". But I also believ (see earlier post) that the military will do everything within its power to keep the war from becoming close range. Our ground forces and cavalry are superior. Our navy is unmatched. And our air force is as well. "North Korean pilots would almost own American pilots" please, no military in the world spends more on training then we do, and this statement is erroneous.

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

Thank you. Believe it or not, all my posts get to be this long. Sometimes it's tiring.

Anyway, it's good to see that you'd be in military service soon. I'm entering military service as well. I studied a lot of strategy and tactics in my spare time.

On the other hand, why do you believe NK would ultimately lose? I'd just like to hear your reasoning. Personally, I believe a war would result in a massive U.S. defeat. The U.S. has shown time and again that it does not have the stomach for a war against a highly-motivated and ultra-patriotic people such as North Koreans, especially in a prolonged war, which the Second Korean War will definitely be. Blindly patriotic, many are, but still, they fight the Asians way: Don't take prisoners, don't become prisoners. It's all about morale and mentality, and history has also shown America morale and mentality is a huge liability. But that seems to be a reccuring pattern in all superpowers.

North Korea is in no way an easy foe. Aside from China and the Cold War Soviet Union, they are the deadliest enemy one could ever face. They would be more than willing to fight to the last infant. You also have to consider the fact China will get involved. If worst comes to worst, Russia will definitely be out to protect it's own interests.

So what's your reasoning? I'd just like to know what major advantage the U.S. has.

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo

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

Thank you. Believe it or not, all my posts get to be this long. Sometimes it's tiring.

Anyway, it's good to see that you'd be in military service soon. I'm entering military service as well. I studied a lot of strategy and tactics in my spare time.

On the other hand, why do you believe NK would ultimately lose? I'd just like to hear your reasoning. Personally, I believe a war would result in a massive U.S. defeat. The U.S. has shown time and again that it does not have the stomach for a war against a highly-motivated and ultra-patriotic people such as North Koreans, especially in a prolonged war, which the Second Korean War will definitely be. Blindly patriotic, many are, but still, they fight the Asians way: Don't take prisoners, don't become prisoners. It's all about morale and mentality, and history has also shown America morale and mentality is a huge liability. But that seems to be a reccuring pattern in all superpowers.

North Korea is in no way an easy foe. Aside from China and the Cold War Soviet Union, they are the deadliest enemy one could ever face. They would be more than willing to fight to the last infant. You also have to consider the fact China will get involved. If worst comes to worst, Russia will definitely be out to protect it's own interests.

So what's your reasoning? I'd just like to know what major advantage the U.S. has.

Well, the major advantage the US has, is air power. I admit that my previous statement was exaggerated. But with it's air power, the US could slow down the advancing armour columns and hammer the entreched artillery positions near the DMZ. During this period, the ROK forces could be mobilized and sent to the reinforce the defences.

Depending on who starts the war, the first hours of the war would be the deadliest to ROK & US forces. If the North-Koreans start it, then they'll get a salvo of normal, chemical and biological artillery shells raining on Seoul, airfields and major troop concentrations.

Another major factor is the motivation of NK's forces? Would they really be ready to die for their Dear Leader? Considering that their economy is in shambles, there are constant food shortages and the country is basically slowly falling apart.

The second Korean war would a huge and difficult war. But in the long haul, the US & ROK have the upper hand. As I said earlier, it would cost the lives of millions.

But, I'm just speculating. I'm not an expert on military issues or tactics.

Russia and china protecting their own interests would mean them wanting NK out of there. Even Russia and china, a communist and a former communist state harbor no love for NK. They believe Nuclear weapons in the hands of a man with no compunctions about mass murder is far to dangerous to leave well enough alone.

A massive United States defeat? I don't think so. We won unilaterally against Iraq, and I don't believe we would be fighting unilaterally against North Korea. Fighting against a nation in the fastest growing section of the world would mean countries would need to take sides,and I don't think any country would ally against the worlds last megapower. BTW, " But that seems to be a reccuring pattern in all superpowers. " As far as I know there have only been two superpowers in history, Russia, and the US.

Fighting to the last infant? I think not. There's a reason far more NK military forces are used to keep people in than to keep people out. The people there are starving, live under a madman, and have virtually no real rights. In a communist country there is no real god, and so there would be no real reward for fighting to the last. Kim Sung Il has even stamped out much of the eastern animism that was present, meaning that we wouldn't see a fanatic resistance as would be the case in Iran and SYria, places with cities of real importance to protect.

I'm also picking up some kind of weird Asian superiority vibe from you. Is that you posting Kim Sung?

I also think the "millions dead within hours" is ridiculous as well. As deadly as weapons have become, they don't take out THAT many people at once. It'll take at least several months at most to reach a million.

Originally posted by Dreamstone
SweatMonicaIdo(nice tag) what is your basis for the "eastern pilots are better" thought. I don't know of any evidence for this, considering that the latest war you backed this up with was Vietnam, and out tactics and training have definitely advanced since then. You did have a good point regarding plane construction, our fighters do have some traits of being "tanks of the sky". But I also believ (see earlier post) that the military will do everything within its power to keep the war from becoming close range. Our ground forces and cavalry are superior. Our navy is unmatched. And our air force is as well. "North Korean pilots would almost own American pilots" please, no military in the world spends more on training then we do, and this statement is erroneous.

Yes, it is a lovely tag, isn't it?

As for saying "eastern pilots are better," I meant solely in the field of air combat. The fact that Russian air doctrine JUST RECENTLY expanded the concept of long-range missiles shows that they had always intended to fight dogfights in very close range. They spread this idea around, and close range dogfights have more advantages than disadvantages. First, even if you use missiles, you can be more discriminatory. At long ranges, since you have the benefit for being outside of the danger zone, it seems better to take out targets from there. But at long ranges, the enemy also has much more time to respond and evade the threat. At close ranges, if a missile gets a lock and it fires at you, it's three strikes. Missiles are always more effective at close ranges. Then the guns. Missiles can be spoofed, but guns can't. Eastern pilots put a major emphasis on gun usage because of this.

Think of it in terms of baseball. Home runs are like missiles, right? Very effective. However, they are effective only as far as how big it is. In other words, is it a solo shot or a grand slam? Home runs also require that hitting pitch, one inside or up or right down the middle of the plate. And that doesn't guarantee a home run either. It can always bounce off the wall. But say that you decided to instead hit singles and steal bases. If you hit a single, the only way you'd get out is if you're stupid enough to run slowly. Stealing bases isn't easy either, but it's much easier to get a jump and a dash than to bash balls over the fence.

While U.S. training is excellent and things have changed, we still put an emphasis on overcoming the enemy with power.But power is effective only if you give the opportunity to use it. In the classic warp-speed dogfight, using your radars and working to lock-on with a missile is a waste of time. You always have to stay on top of the enemy. The U.S. can do so, but Eastern pilots have always fought with that doctrine that it's become nature for them. In the end, Eastern pilots just fight better. Simpler is a winner.

You also say we would keep this a long-range war. If you've ever studied Korea, you'd see just how small it really is. The only way to keep it a long-range war is to base everything in Japan. And eventually, we'd have to get up close and personal. You also say that our ground forces and cavalry are superior. In terms of firepower, support, and structure, yes. But I think people make the mistake of overlooking tactics, again as in air combat. North Korean troops, like their air force counter-parts, are trained to fight CQB very well. They also have home-field advantage, and the Korea terrain is hell for tanks and vehicles. Of course, we can use helicopters and B-52 bombers, but North Korea has one of the most capable air defense systems in the world. North Korea also has a large special operations force, plus paramilitary and guerilla fighters. They will no doubt be used to make the enemy's lives miserable. In the end, U.S. equipment is not suitable for the theater and the troops will be forced to get down and dirty, and history has shown as recently as Iraq we have problems getting down and dirty.

Obviously, our navy is superior. No doubt. But especially in small waters, American naval forces will have to risk missile attacks and submarines. Even so, the U.S. Navy is the only major advantage the U.S. has in this war.

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
I also think the "millions dead within hours" is ridiculous as well. As deadly as weapons have become, they don't take out THAT many people at once. It'll take at least several months at most to reach a million.

If you're referring to my earlier post, you got it wrong. I meant the casualties from the day 1 to the end of the conflict. And that will take months.

Originally posted by Paradigm
Well, the major advantage the US has, is air power. I admit that my previous statement was exaggerated. But with it's air power, the US could slow down the advancing armour columns and hammer the entreched artillery positions near the DMZ. During this period, the ROK forces could be mobilized and sent to the reinforce the defences.

Depending on who starts the war, the first hours of the war would be the deadliest to ROK & US forces. If the North-Koreans start it, then they'll get a salvo of normal, chemical and biological artillery shells raining on Seoul, airfields and major troop concentrations.

Another major factor is the motivation of NK's forces? Would they really be ready to die for their Dear Leader? Considering that their economy is in shambles, there are constant food shortages and the country is basically slowly falling apart.

The second Korean war would a huge and difficult war. But in the long haul, the US & ROK have the upper hand. As I said earlier, it would cost the lives of millions.

But, I'm just speculating. I'm not an expert on military issues or tactics.

Again, air power will be very limited in this war. You can't ever forget North Korea has a powerful air defense system. And these guys are disciplined, not the Iraqi nut-bolts that fired at the stars. Electronic warfare is unparalled in the U.S., but this doesn't last forever. And entering NK airspace to take out these systems is suicide. You'd be lucky to even fire a missile.

When I said motivated, I didn't mean they wanted to save their Dear Leader. What I meant was, they want to be North Korea, not America's puppet nation. Asians are also naturally xenophobic. They want to be their own person. If they become free, they want it to be their own doing. By letting America do it for them, they only open themselves up to the same dangers and crap America faces. In the end, it's about their people, not necessarily about politics.

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo

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

Thank you. Believe it or not, all my posts get to be this long. Sometimes it's tiring.

Anyway, it's good to see that you'd be in military service soon. I'm entering military service as well. I studied a lot of strategy and tactics in my spare time.

On the other hand, why do you believe NK would ultimately lose? I'd just like to hear your reasoning. Personally, I believe a war would result in a massive U.S. defeat. The U.S. has shown time and again that it does not have the stomach for a war against a highly-motivated and ultra-patriotic people such as North Koreans, especially in a prolonged war, which the Second Korean War will definitely be. Blindly patriotic, many are, but still, they fight the Asians way: Don't take prisoners, don't become prisoners. It's all about morale and mentality, and history has also shown America morale and mentality is a huge liability. But that seems to be a reccuring pattern in all superpowers.

North Korea is in no way an easy foe. Aside from China and the Cold War Soviet Union, they are the deadliest enemy one could ever face. They would be more than willing to fight to the last infant. You also have to consider the fact China will get involved. If worst comes to worst, Russia will definitely be out to protect it's own interests.

So what's your reasoning? I'd just like to know what major advantage the U.S. has.

1) Superior technology.No , maybe its not the key to win all wars , but it still give them a big advange.The B-2 stealth bombers would be a serious problems for NK.

2) The U.S have more allies then NK.If there is a war one day , i seriously doubt that the U.S would go at it alone.They would probably form a coalition with Japan , South Korea and a couple of other countries that dont like NK( Australia and U.K come to mind).Also , it will be less difficult the find allies for a war with NK than it was with Iraq.

3) If the war take longer that what originally planned , NK will probably miss some ressources (fuel , food ect ect).That would weaken them a lot and they would probably surrender not so long after that (the other options is that they could launch a nuke but then they would be instantly annihilated , so they would lost one way or another)

4) NK Air Forces and Marine can not compete with the U.S.You may say that NK AF and NF are well trained or whatever but cmon , they still cant challenge the U.S Air forces or the U.S Naval forces.They do have a big and strong infantry but it would be useless against bombers or high tech tanks.

5) This wouldnt be a gueriall war like it is in Iraq.NK is a conventionnal army that would fight in a conventionnal war.In a conventionnal war , no armies in the world can stand against the U.S , except maybe an alliance between Russia and China.

6) The JDF( japanese defense forces) are very well trained and equipped and they would probably attack NK on one front while the U.S and South Korea would attack from another.That would make it very difficult for NK to survive a such massive scale attack , unless they use WMD , but against then , if they do that they will only be destroyed even more faster.

The only way that i can see for NK to win a war with the U.S is if Russia and China allie with them but this is extremely improbable.Maybe China would be pissed off because of the massive deployement of U.S troops near their border , the use of their air space by U.S warplanes and the massive exodus of North Koreans that would seek refugees in their country , but even with these factors , i seriously doubt that they would make the move to attack the U.S.China and U.S will eventually clash , but it wont be over North Korea,It wll be over Taiwan and the control of Eurasia.

So to conclude: Other than a miracle , its almost impossible for NK to win a war with the U.S.They would probably cause a lot causalties in the beginning of the war by striking the U.S troops in the DMZ Seoul and Japan but after that , their momentum and morale would go down fast.That would eventually lead to a U.S/Coalition victory in a short period of time. (maybe a couple of months , i say 6 at most).

[Edited on 10-11-2003 by ForceOfWill]

Sweat, their cavalry and ground is better than ours? A definite no. They have a large army that is conscripted, and because it is conscripted they can not train each and every soldier as well as they might like. Our volunteer army is well armed, and extremely well trained. Tactically we are superior in terms of strategic and tactical planning to every other country. Period. For further proof of this I suggest you look at the CNN special, "Inside the War Room" I believe its called. It examines US tactical and strategic planning in the second Iraq war. Believe me, there is no eventuality that these guys haven't covered.

Submarines and korean ships? Koreas Navy is almost nonexistant, and we could wipe out waht craft they have within 48 hours of a war starting. This includes submarines.

We would be able to mantain a long range war for a while. precision air strikes and cruise missile attacks would weather away NK defenses very quickly, though not as effectively as ina desert surrounding.

I'm tired, this thread is wearing me out

Originally posted by Dreamstone
A massive United States defeat? I don't think so. We won unilaterally against Iraq, and I don't believe we would be fighting unilaterally against North Korea. Fighting against a nation in the fastest growing section of the world would mean countries would need to take sides,and I don't think any country would ally against the worlds last megapower. BTW, " But that seems to be a reccuring pattern in all superpowers. " As far as I know there have only been two superpowers in history, Russia, and the US.

Fighting to the last infant? I think not. There's a reason far more NK military forces are used to keep people in than to keep people out. The people there are starving, live under a madman, and have virtually no real rights. In a communist country there is no real god, and so there would be no real reward for fighting to the last. Kim Sung Il has even stamped out much of the eastern animism that was present, meaning that we wouldn't see a fanatic resistance as would be the case in Iran and SYria, places with cities of real importance to protect.

I'm also picking up some kind of weird Asian superiority vibe from you. Is that you posting Kim Sung?

Just because I say positive things about the enemy doesn't mean I have that superiority vibe. I am Asian, but I am actually very anti-Asian culture. I only say what I say because it's the truth, that we are in fact on the short end in a war with North Korea.

I still think it'd be a massive defeat. Again, you have to realize North Korea doesn't like America, just like it may not like it's own leader. But that doesn't mean North Korea will allow the U.S. to assimilate their own nation into American society. They want to be themselves, not someone's pet project. An enemy with this kind of heart is not one easily defeated. And what makes you think it will be a multi-lateral conflict? North Korea has shown tha when it comes to politics, they're just a dog with a big bark.

Originally posted by Dreamstone
Sweat, their cavalry and ground is better than ours? A definite no. They have a large army that is conscripted, and because it is conscripted they can not train each and every soldier as well as they might like. Our volunteer army is well armed, and extremely well trained. Tactically we are superior in terms of strategic and tactical planning to every other country. Period. For further proof of this I suggest you look at the CNN special, "Inside the War Room" I believe its called. It examines US tactical and strategic planning in the second Iraq war. Believe me, there is no eventuality that these guys haven't covered.

Submarines and korean ships? Koreas Navy is almost nonexistant, and we could wipe out waht craft they have within 48 hours of a war starting. This includes submarines.

We would be able to mantain a long range war for a while. precision air strikes and cruise missile attacks would weather away NK defenses very quickly, though not as effectively as ina desert surrounding.

I'm tired, this thread is wearing me out

Again, you say that precision air strikes and cruise missiles strikes will do the damage. But how can precision air strikes occur successfully if those very aircraft are fired on six ways from Sunday by SAMs? If there's one thing you shouldn't underestimate, it's North Korea's defensive capabilites.

Also, I never said North Korea's cavalry and ground is better. I only said the terrain is not suitable for U.S. military operations on the ground. Our soldiers may be well-trained, but when it comes to fighting on the ground in treacherous terrain which does not accomodate tanks and vehicles well, that's an advantage to the enemy.

What most Koreans really want is unity, and I America would not try to occupy NK because
1.South Korea would do it for us, as part of the building of a great Korean nation
2. There aren't many natural resources there to take advantage of(sad but true)
3. Korea isn't in a part of the world where we are short on allies, as is the case with Iraq. Its startegic postioning isn't all that grand I'm afraid.

Ultimately, many of the problems we face in Iraq would be neutralized because Korea is divided. There are those on both sides who remember a single Korea, and that dream would definitely outweigh resistance fighting.

Of which there will be little, we wouldn't be occupying, like I said. A government in which we are firmly entrenched with would be occupying.

There is 99 % of chances that it would be a multi - lateral war(on the U.S side).I have no doubt that South Korea and Japan would be involved because a war with NK would concern both of them.

Here's what American airpower could do to North Korea's defence capabilities:

Six B-2s each armed with 80 500-lb JDAMs sequentially launch from Guam. The strike is
coordinated with several divisions of B-1s with 12 JDAMs per aircraft and F-117s with two
laser-guided precision-guided weapons per aircraft, taking off from other bases in the region.
These strikes would be deconflicted with the launch of more than 300 Tomahawk cruise
missiles from the various cruisers and submarines positioned in the Pacific. Six additional B-2s,
flying out of their home base in Missouri, time their arrival closely behind ? loaded with 24
1,000-lb JDAMs or 16 2,000-lb JDAMs. One thousand targets could be destroyed prior to
sunrise. This would prepare the battleground for ground forces to rapidly sweep to the North
under a protective close air support umbrella of tactical aircraft from two carrier battle groups
and other aircraft and assault helicopters in the South.

www.cdi.org...

That document also discusses the outcome of different scenarios on the Korean peninsula. You might wanna check it out.

SAMs wouldn't be able to hit extremely high altitude stealth bombers, and cruise missiles can only be effectively shot down by missile defenses, such as the Patriot, which I hope we haven't sold to them

I misunderstood what you said and I concur, NK having home turf would definitely be an advantage, especially when we can't use our tanks.

Originally posted by ForceOfWill
1) Superior technology.No , maybe its not the key to win all wars , but it still give them a big advange.The B-2 stealth bombers would be a serious problems for NK.

2) The U.S have more allies then NK.If there is a war one day , i seriously doubt that the U.S would go at it alone.They would probably form a coalition with Japan , South Korea and a couple of other countries that dont like NK( Australia and U.K come to mind).Also , it will be less difficult the find allies for a war with NK than it was with Iraq.

3) If the war take longer that what originally planned , NK will probably miss some ressources (fuel , food ect ect).That would weaken them a lot and they would probably surrender not so long after that (the other options is that they could launch a nuke but then they would be instantly annihilated , so they would lost one way or another)

4) NK Air Forces and Marine can not compete with the U.S.You may say that NK AF and NF are well trained or whatever but cmon , they still cant challenge the U.S Air forces or the U.S Naval forces.They do have a big and strong infantry but it would be useless against bombers or high tech tanks.

5) This wouldnt be a gueriall war like it is in Iraq.NK is a conventionnal army that would fight in a conventionnal war.In a conventionnal war , no armies in the world can stand against the U.S , except maybe an alliance between Russia and China.

6) The JDF( japanese defense forces) are very well trained and equipped and they would probably attack NK on one front while the U.S and South Korea would attack from another.That would make it very difficult for NK to survive a such massive scale attack , unless they use WMD , but against then , if they do that they will only be destroyed even more faster.

The only way that i can see for NK to win a war with the U.S is if Russia and China allie with them but this is extremely improbable.Maybe China would be pissed off because of the massive deployement of U.S troops near their border , the use of their air space by U.S warplanes and the massive exodus of North Koreans that would seek refugees in their country , but even with these factors , i seriously doubt that they would make the move to attack the U.S.China and U.S will eventually clash , but it wont be over North Korea,It wll be over Taiwan and the control of Eurasia.

So to conclude: Other than a miracle , its almost impossible for NK to win a war with the U.S.They would probably cause a lot causalties in the beginning of the war by striking the U.S troops in the DMZ Seoul and Japan but after that , their momentum and morale would go down fast.That would eventually lead to a U.S/Coalition victory in a short period of time. (maybe a couple of months , i say 6 at most).

[Edited on 10-11-2003 by ForceOfWill]

You mentioned the B-2. Do you realize the U.S. has only 20? The B-2 has also had some well-publicized problems regarding it's radar-cross signature. As for technology as a whole, you all continuously disregard the fact that the size and terrain of the country makes such technological advantages either limited in full capability or useless (long-range air-to-air missiles).

You also repeatedly say they cannot match up with our forces but not say exactly why. And you still disregard the fact the geography of the theater does not accomodate technology very well. Bombers? Tanks? Tanks are sitting ducks on mountains and bombers are easy prey for SAMs because of their slow speed.

You have no knowledge of North Korean miltiary forces and it shows. If you actually study them, you'll find out North Korea has both paramilitary and guerrilla trained forces. In fact, their doctrine has them be a huge part of any way.

I do agree a coalition would defeat NK. But I see a coalition outside of U.S., SK, and Japan as unlikely. North Korea is not stupid enough to start a war, and it's been shown America's new policy of preemptive strikes include starting wars, and when you start them, cry wolf and come up with nothing as they did in Iraq, you get more enemies.

I just wish people would wake up and realize victory is a long shot. America is powerful, but we lack in so many ways.

Also, we have a new weapon that would be incredibly effectve in jungle terrain-special operations forces backed up by air power. Read the Book The Hunt for Bin Ladin. It outlines these tactics a bit better but here goes.

Special ops force is going through North Korean jungle when it spots a North Korean battle group. Using a combination of laser triangulation and gps systems they are able to thumb in the enemy's exact coordinates. They relay the coordinates to a bomber overhead, who, using a JDAM is able to bomb the enemy precisely. it would not be the saturation bombing of Vietnam. The war in AFghanistan and Iraq was won using such tactics, and the war in NK would be won this way as well

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo

Originally posted by ForceOfWill
1) Superior technology.No , maybe its not the key to win all wars , but it still give them a big advange.The B-2 stealth bombers would be a serious problems for NK.

2) The U.S have more allies then NK.If there is a war one day , i seriously doubt that the U.S would go at it alone.They would probably form a coalition with Japan , South Korea and a couple of other countries that dont like NK( Australia and U.K come to mind).Also , it will be less difficult the find allies for a war with NK than it was with Iraq.

3) If the war take longer that what originally planned , NK will probably miss some ressources (fuel , food ect ect).That would weaken them a lot and they would probably surrender not so long after that (the other options is that they could launch a nuke but then they would be instantly annihilated , so they would lost one way or another)

4) NK Air Forces and Marine can not compete with the U.S.You may say that NK AF and NF are well trained or whatever but cmon , they still cant challenge the U.S Air forces or the U.S Naval forces.They do have a big and strong infantry but it would be useless against bombers or high tech tanks.

5) This wouldnt be a gueriall war like it is in Iraq.NK is a conventionnal army that would fight in a conventionnal war.In a conventionnal war , no armies in the world can stand against the U.S , except maybe an alliance between Russia and China.

6) The JDF( japanese defense forces) are very well trained and equipped and they would probably attack NK on one front while the U.S and South Korea would attack from another.That would make it very difficult for NK to survive a such massive scale attack , unless they use WMD , but against then , if they do that they will only be destroyed even more faster.

The only way that i can see for NK to win a war with the U.S is if Russia and China allie with them but this is extremely improbable.Maybe China would be pissed off because of the massive deployement of U.S troops near their border , the use of their air space by U.S warplanes and the massive exodus of North Koreans that would seek refugees in their country , but even with these factors , i seriously doubt that they would make the move to attack the U.S.China and U.S will eventually clash , but it wont be over North Korea,It wll be over Taiwan and the control of Eurasia.

So to conclude: Other than a miracle , its almost impossible for NK to win a war with the U.S.They would probably cause a lot causalties in the beginning of the war by striking the U.S troops in the DMZ Seoul and Japan but after that , their momentum and morale would go down fast.That would eventually lead to a U.S/Coalition victory in a short period of time. (maybe a couple of months , i say 6 at most).

[Edited on 10-11-2003 by ForceOfWill]

You mentioned the B-2. Do you realize the U.S. has only 20? The B-2 has also had some well-publicized problems regarding it's radar-cross signature. As for technology as a whole, you all continuously disregard the fact that the size and terrain of the country makes such technological advantages either limited in full capability or useless (long-range air-to-air missiles).

You also repeatedly say they cannot match up with our forces but not say exactly why. And you still disregard the fact the geography of the theater does not accomodate technology very well. Bombers? Tanks? Tanks are sitting ducks on mountains and bombers are easy prey for SAMs because of their slow speed.

You have no knowledge of North Korean miltiary forces and it shows. If you actually study them, you'll find out North Korea has both paramilitary and guerrilla trained forces. In fact, their doctrine has them be a huge part of any way.

I do agree a coalition would defeat NK. But I see a coalition outside of U.S., SK, and Japan as unlikely. North Korea is not stupid enough to start a war, and it's been shown America's new policy of preemptive strikes include starting wars, and when you start them, cry wolf and come up with nothing as they did in Iraq, you get more enemies.

I just wish people would wake up and realize victory is a long shot. America is powerful, but we lack in so many ways.

Actually i do have a certain knowledge of NK military and the only thing powerful that they have is their thousands of heavy artillery guns that are stationned near the DMZ border.As for their Air and naval forces , the DPRK still use planes and submarine from the cold war era.They simply cant defeat a modernized army such as the U.S with that 50 years old equipement. They also have some biological , chemical and possibly nuclear stuff , but like i said earlier , if they dare to use that stuff , it would probably shock the international public opinion and they are going to be erased from the map of the world faster than a bobsleigh ride at the winter olympics.

As for the B-2 subject , it dont take a lot of them to take out most of NK defenses.The B-2 are undetectable and they fly at a very high altitude.It make it almost impossible for NK to shoot them down.

You may be right about the geographic situation of NK that could give the U.S forces some problems.But it dont change the fact that the U.S would still win , even if we consider that factor.

Btw , im taking much of my military informations out of www.globalsecurity,org which is a very good a credible site.

I think that your overestimating North Korea real miliary power quite a bit my friend . Most of what they claim is bluff.

Pardigm, thanks for that PDF. It is an incredible and interesting read. And a lot of what it says is true.

Yet, as with anything American, it has many holes. But that's okay, after all they're selling a plan.

Still, it's assuming North Korea's defensive capabilities are that inferior. It's not. It even admits that they have a powerful air defense network. It also does not take into account the effect terrain and environment would have on the U.S. and it's allies. The whole thing seems to say our technology will allow us to win.

It's legit, but it's not a very accurate account. It forgets the unpredictability of the enemy and the limitations our forces will have on someone else's grass.

Originally posted by Dreamstone
SAMs wouldn't be able to hit extremely high altitude stealth bombers, and cruise missiles can only be effectively shot down by missile defenses, such as the Patriot, which I hope we haven't sold to them

North Korea's air defense also includes the MiG-25 "Foxbat," which can pretty much fly on the edge of space. Up that high, it's not as difficult spotting a small radar cross signature, especially one that has had it's share of problems.