US vs. Korea

Linderbee · February 3rd, 2006, 12:23 PM

Could the U.S. win a war against North Korea? (and should we?)

Quote:

SEOUL – The US and South Korean could defeat North Korea in a war, America's top soldier said yesterday.
His statement followed an assessment by the chief of US intelligence that North Korea, together with Iran, was still a "state of highest concern" to the US because of its nuclear programs – though al-Qaida was the top security threat.
Earlier, the two Koreas announced they would hold general-level military talks for the first time in nearly two years.
The US has about 30,000 troops in South Korea with about 690,000 South Korean troops. North Korea has most of its million-strong military near the fortified Demilitarised Zone that divides the peninsula.
"We are fully capable today of defeating any North Korean aggression and we will maintain that capacity," General Peter Pace said.
The chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff said figuring out the secretive communist state's military policy was a difficult challenge.
"Not knowing what their intent is, you need to be prepared to counter if their intent is ill," he said.
North and South Korea are technically still at war because the 1950-1953 Korean War ended in a truce and not a peace treaty.
Regional powers are trying to persuade North Korea to give up its nuclear programs in return for aid and security guarantees.
Washington is reducing the number of troops in South Korea, but both US and South Korean officials say the deterrent value of the US force remains crucial.
Ambassador John Negroponte, director of national intelligence, told a congressional hearing the North's claims to have nuclear weapons were "probably true".
"We do not know the conditions under which North Korea would be willing to fully relinquish itsnuclear weapons and its programs," he said.
"Nor do we see signs of organised opposition to the regime among North Korea's political and military elite."
On Iran, he said: "We judge that Tehran probably does not yet have a nuclear weapon and probably has not yet produced or acquired the necessary fissile material.
"Nevertheless, the danger that it will acquire a nuclear weapon and the ability to integrate it with the ballistic missiles Iran already possesses is a reason for immediate concern," he said.
Iran under its President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was "more confident and assertive than it has been since the early days of the Islamic Republic," he said.
The prospect of instability threatening the regime was unlikely, though President Ahmadinejad's inexperience and rhetorical recklessness could lead to missteps.
Of particular concern, Mr Negroponte said, were Iran's policies toward Iraq. Tehran was seeking a Shi'ite-dominated Iraq but wanted the US to suffer setbacks in its efforts to establish stability.
He accused it of providing Shi'ite militias with weapons and training for attacks on US forces, and of introducing shaped explosives that have increased the potential of roadside bombs.
Of Iraq, Mr Negroponte said: "There almost certainly will be a lag time before we see a dampening effect on the insurgency. Insurgents continue to demonstrate the ability to recruit, supply and attack coalition and security forces."
Gen Pace said the US was drawing down its troops in Iraq from about 160,000 in the country for December's elections.
He said al-Qaida, though battered, would attempt "high impact" attacks as long as its central command functioned. He defended domestic spying as "effective and important . . . in dealing with the terrorist threat".

jenna2891 · February 3rd, 2006, 12:29 PM

bravo, linderbee!

Linderbee · February 3rd, 2006, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jenna2891

bravo, linderbee!

Yay, me!

Linderbee · February 3rd, 2006, 12:34 PM

I know how you voted

jenna2891 · February 3rd, 2006, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Linderbee

I know how you voted

i didn't vote yet...

Dback Jon · February 3rd, 2006, 12:37 PM

Nuke em!

jenna2891 · February 3rd, 2006, 12:37 PM

my vote would be like #2, except i would say that it isn't our business yet...

we could beat them, but let's not underestimate them.

Linderbee · February 3rd, 2006, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jenna2891

i didn't vote yet...

You're lying to me!!!

Linderbee · February 3rd, 2006, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dback Jon

Nuke em!

That was purely for SWD...

:runsandhidesfromSWD:

Dback Jon · February 3rd, 2006, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Linderbee

That was purely for SWD...

:runsandhidesfromSWD:

jenna2891 · February 3rd, 2006, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Linderbee

You're lying to me!!!

no, i swear!

CardLogic · February 3rd, 2006, 01:07 PM

With the current political climates in the U.S. we would get our azzes handed to us by either NK or China.

Why? It has got nothing to do with superiority in either weapons (the U.S. is superior) nor "man power" (NK and China each would be willing to committ larger numbers of forces).

But rather the U.S. would lose because of a lack of willingness on the part of both our leadership and the populace to suffer an all-out war. The U.S. no longer has the "stomach" for total war (maybe that's a good thing), which is what those countries (NK or China) would opt for.

GreenCard · February 3rd, 2006, 01:19 PM

If you want to mess with North Korea and China better break out the old Draft Board and let it run for a couple of years.

justAndy · February 3rd, 2006, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CardLogic

With the current political climates in the U.S. we would get our azzes handed to us by either NK or China.

Why? It has got nothing to do with superiority in either weapons (the U.S. is superior) nor "man power" (NK and China each would be willing to committ larger numbers of forces).

But rather the U.S. would lose because of a lack of willingness on the part of both our leadership and the populace to suffer an all-out war. The U.S. no longer has the "stomach" for total war (maybe that's a good thing), which is what those countries (NK or China) would opt for.

Why would our populous be in favor of yet ANOTHER pre-emptive foreign war 1/2 way round the world?
I'm part of the Militia and will defend America - but not by invading some faraway country.

Stout · February 4th, 2006, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CardLogic

With the current political climates in the U.S. we would get our azzes handed to us by either NK or China.

Why? It has got nothing to do with superiority in either weapons (the U.S. is superior) nor "man power" (NK and China each would be willing to committ larger numbers of forces).

But rather the U.S. would lose because of a lack of willingness on the part of both our leadership and the populace to suffer an all-out war. The U.S. no longer has the "stomach" for total war (maybe that's a good thing), which is what those countries (NK or China) would opt for.

The heart of the difficulty with your answer is that the question was posed poorly in the poll. Yes, we certainly could and would win a war with N. Korea, and the public would demand blood from the Koreans, contrary to your skepticism...but only under certain circumstances. I don't think it's our business to go after N. Korea, no, unless there is a cause. Nukes suck, but like with Iran, how are we going to stop them? By a pre-emptive invasion? Unless the justification given is quite persuasive, I wouldn't agree. In that situation, I think your above answer would be correct. Now, if N. Korea shows additional aggression, and gives cause for a war...well, let's just say we know how Americans back the military when we're given just cause to go to war.