North Korea conflict

[DSully1995]

I could be wrong but I would think that our military would try to kill this guy, correct?

I ****ing hope not, the last this you need is this guy going out like a martyr infront of a completely brainwashed and desperate populace, do no harm. Intervening is just setting yourself up for future problems (Iran 1953)

 

[arrowryan]

Technically, the specific targeting of high-ranking political or military leaders is a war crime under the Geneva Conventions.

Doesn't mean we can't do it though...

We did it with Hussein right?

A country's safety is much more important than an individual's safety

 

[Irish Houstonian]

With Hussein we tried it, but it didn't work (obviously).

Not saying it's a bad idea, just that there's this piece of paper we signed 50 years ago where we agreed not to do it.

 

[DSully1995]

We did it with Hussein right?

A country's safety is much more important than an individual's safety

No one is able to stop the US from doing anything really (unless its total batshit crazy), the strong make the rules, and follow them when they want to...

 

[FLDomer]

No one is able to stop the US from doing anything really (unless its total batshit crazy), the strong make the rules, and follow them when they want to...

For someone that doesn't live in this country you are very concerned with out politics....

 

[DSully1995]

For someone that doesn't live in this country you are very concerned with out politics....

The repercussions of your decisions affect everyone, and by custom Canada follows you. I want tot think proudly of my countries actions, so Im concerned with its allies decisions as well.

 

[FLDomer]

The repercussions of your decisions affect everyone, and by custom Canada follows you. I want tot think proudly of my countries actions, so Im concerned with its allies decisions as well.

Fair enough but I think we are handling it well and calmly.... the gun opinion/discussion thread?

 

[irishff1014]

The repercussions of your decisions affect everyone, and by custom Canada follows you. I want tot think proudly of my countries actions, so Im concerned with its allies decisions as well.

The only way to shut that POS up is for him to eat a 50. cal.

 

[DSully1995]

Fair enough but I think we are handling it well and calmly.... the gun opinion/discussion thread?

What about it? gun control is always a firestorm

 

[FLDomer]

What about it? gun control is always a firestorm

You make comments about my country and some of the views of its citizens in derogatory manners (ie insinuating Texas unsafe for gays recently). I can meat ya over in that forum if you want and not clog the N. Korea talk...lol

 

[Pachuco]

I'm going to have to find that TED talk. Sounds great.

I think this is the talk that Buster Bluth was referencing:

Thomas Barnett: Rethinking America's military strategy | Video on TED.com

 

[ulukinatme]

I ****ing hope not, the last this you need is this guy going out like a martyr infront of a completely brainwashed and desperate populace, do no harm. Intervening is just setting yourself up for future problems (Iran 1953)

This is probably why we had Iraq take Hussein to trial, sentence, and execute him themselves. Harder to make a martyr of a guy when your own people serve the justice as oppose to the country that "invaded."

 

[DSully1995]

This is probably why we had Iraq take Hussein to trial, sentence, and execute him themselves. Harder to make a martyr of a guy when your own people serve the justice as oppose to the country that "invaded."

Which might have not been such a grat idea either, Hussein was a bastard, but the only one who could contain the different sects in iraq, not to mention it neutralized irans rival in the region

 

[ulukinatme]

I know they have expressed their displeasure with recent behavior, but I haven't heard that they have said they would not back North Korea. If they did give assurances they were not going to back them, there is really nothing keeping us from bombing them into the stone age.

But, they tell a different story. Here's a link to the official propaganda coming out of North Korea.

http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2013/201304/news02/20130402-10ee.html

This is still my favorite North Korea propaganda. I can't wait till it's Tuesday, I've already caught a bird to eat!

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/0VgW8lyCkaU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Which might have not been such a grat idea either, Hussein was a bastard, but the only one who could contain the different sects in iraq, not to mention it neutralized irans rival in the region

If by "contain" you mean "use VX gas on the Kurds" then you're absolutely right.

 

[IrishSteelhead]

At what point should I start hoarding Hot Pockets and Whiskey?

 

[HereComeTheIrish]

This is still my favorite North Korea propaganda. I can't wait till it's Tuesday, I've already caught a bird to eat!

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/0VgW8lyCkaU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

That was pure genius. I'd rep you some more but I was just heading into the back yard to drink some snow and hopefully rustle up a bird or two....

 

[tadman95]

We got snow today! Living LARGE in Mayberry! You guys come on down!

 

[ulukinatme]

I'd give you a call, tad, and get directions...but the phones don't work. There is no one to call.

 

[blueNDgold44]

Have you guys tried BBQ pigeon w/ a dash of snow? Its to die for, literally.

 

[HereComeTheIrish]

Snow just sets it over the top every single time. Snow is the new pepper

 

[BobD]

One thing I forgot to mention last night is the only reason North Korea exists is to be a buffer between China and the US allied South Korea. People are being starved to death by a maniacal regime because China and the US could not share a common border.

 

[BGIF]

...

Our military could wipe them off the map without ever putting any boots on the ground, let alone using a nuke.

...

Are you that incredibly naive or are you so consumed with your political rhetoric to have even a casual grasp of history?

We decimated the Red Guard two decades ago yet we're still there. The Taliban don't have an air force. How many years have we been in Afganistan?

The mightiest army AND navy in the world was going to put down a local insurrection when they marched on Concord one morning.

Congressmen and their wives picnicked overlooking a creek called Bull Run at the start of a war that was to be over in no time at all.

Korea was a police action ... "over by Christmas" ... 60 years later we're not only still there, we've got ship's steaming into harm's way as we sleep.

RVN?

They didn't call it quits in the Balkans after their infrastructure ceased to exist. It was't until the British PM was calling up 30,000 reservists and Clinton changed his stance on troops going in that the locals had a change of heart.

That embargo of Iraq really had Saddam suing for peace as children in his country starved And died from a lack of medicines, didn't it?

The list is long. Your recollection viz a viz your strategy fuzzy.


By the way with AF resources committed to Iraq and Afganistan, the Straits of Hormuz, Syria?, guarding home skies since 9/11, besides the reduction in force over the years, just how many planes and crews are available NOW for your Stone Age Bombing Campaign? How much materiel is stockpiled in that theatre?

 

[BGIF]

Patton I am mixed. I am not sure you want a general like MacArthur in the future. Forget the fact that he was a very political leader and at times he supported his cronies rather than promotion based on meritocracy. But he made some dubious decisions both in the Pacific and Korean War. His insistence on taking Philippines, pushing upwards the 38th parallel despite Chinese warnings seems problematic or strongly advocating the use of nukes in Korea.

Reps spark! It refreshing to find someone who is more familiar with WW II and Korea than a John Wayne movie.

Patton was solid within the framework of HIS battlefield. He was a Conjar pounding off tackle play after play after play. He wasn't a Parshegian calling The Game.

MacArthur may have added a year to the war in the Pacific with his boondoggles on New Guinea and the Phillipines. Inchon turned the tide in the South but his arrogance in the race to the Yalu lead to Chosin Reservoir in the North.

 

[BangbangNDLarry]

North Korea is stronger than you think

North Korea is stronger than you think

If North Korea ever fired upon us they would face immediate military retaliation. Yet as one of our bright colige here said the would "get wiped off the face of the earth" or would they? They have a localized standing army of over 1.4 million. The united states does NOT have a standing army and currently has around 1.2 million active soldiers worldwide. So even if we were able to mobilize half of our troops we would still be out numbered 2-1. Socially they are an incredibly nationalistic society willing to die for their country. They are well trained, well armed and willing to fight. So in the end we may win the war but we will suffer heavy american casualties and it will be a painful experience for our country. I love this country, but we are facing perils in the upcoming years.

 

[FLDomer]

If North Korea ever fired upon us they would face immediate military retaliation. Yet as one of our bright colige here said the would "get wiped off the face of the earth" or would they? They have a localized standing army of over 1.4 million. The united states does NOT have a standing army and currently has around 1.2 million active soldiers worldwide. So even if we were able to mobilize half of our troops we would still be out numbered 2-1. Socially they are an incredibly nationalistic society willing to die for their country. They are well trained, well armed and willing to fight. So in the end we may win the war but we will suffer heavy american casualties and it will be a painful experience for our country. I love this country, but we are facing perils in the upcoming years.

Sweet Screen Name! Good 1st post though...

 

[sparkyND]

Are you that incredibly naive or are you so consumed with your political rhetoric to have even a casual grasp of history?

We decimated the Red Guard two decades ago yet we're still there. The Taliban don't have an air force. How many years have we been in Afganistan?

The mightiest army AND navy in the world was going to put down a local insurrection when they marched on Concord one morning.

Congressmen and their wives picnicked overlooking a creek called Bull Run at the start of a war that was to be over in no time at all.

Korea was a police action ... "over by Christmas" ... 60 years later we're not only still there, we've got ship's steaming into harm's way as we sleep.

RVN?

They didn't call it quits in the Balkans after their infrastructure ceased to exist. It was't until the British PM was calling up 30,000 reservists and Clinton changed his stance on troops going in that the locals had a change of heart.

That embargo of Iraq really had Saddam suing for peace as children in his country starved And died from a lack of medicines, didn't it?

The list is long. Your recollection viz a viz your strategy fuzzy.


By the way with AF resources committed to Iraq and Afganistan, the Straits of Hormuz, Syria?, guarding home skies since 9/11, besides the reduction in force over the years, just how many planes and crews are available NOW for your Stone Age Bombing Campaign? How much materiel is stockpiled in that theatre?

I would just like to add to BGIF's excellent points:

I think this is why Carl von Clausewitz's dictum still remains true even in today's era: "War is a continuation of politics by other means." It should be policy or the political realm that guides the use of military means. We seem to forget that because of our preponderance of military might.

The other interrelated problem is that most of the times we lack an exit strategy. We should remember that not only is surrendering a political (not a military) decision but war only comes to an end when the losing side sues for peace: "war is pressed by the victor, but peace is made by the vanquished." This is the new area of research emerging amongst the military strategist today. You bomb N. Korea or any other state and then what? What is it that you are trying to achieve? Without clearly laying out the political goals one should never get involved in war or use force.

Airpower alone has rarely been the deciding factor in war. Precision-guided missiles or not, you just cannot defeat a state/groups will to fight solely through bombing from the skies. This is the mistaken belief and anyone interested in airpower should read the following:

Bombing to Win: Air Power and Coercion in War (Cornell Studies in Security Affairs): Robert A. Pape: 9780801483110: Amazon.com: Books

Daryl Press, "The Myth of Air Power in the Persian Gulf War and the Future of Warfare," International Security, Vol. 26, No. 2 (Autumn 2001): 5-44.

 

[sparkyND]

Reps spark! It refreshing to find someone who is more familiar with WW II and Korea than a John Wayne movie.

Patton was solid within the framework of HIS battlefield. He was a Conjar pounding off tackle play after play after play. He wasn't a Parshegian calling The Game.

MacArthur may have added a year to the war in the Pacific with his boondoggles on New Guinea and the Phillipines. Inchon turned the tide in the South but his arrogance in the race to the Yalu lead to Chosin Reservoir in the North.

Thanks BGIF.

I think there is another growing concern since the end of the Cold War both amongst military historians and scholars of civil-military relations when they relate to MacArthur: the growing politicization of the military. The hallmark of democracies is stable civil-military relations or military subordination to its civilian masters (put it more bluntly). Now regardless of what your position may be of this issue, MacArthur's behavior during the Korean War, where he directly challenged the president and the JCS before being relieved, is highly problematic. I am not sure you would want that from your generals either.

 

[GoIrish41]

Are you that incredibly naive or are you so consumed with your political rhetoric to have even a casual grasp of history?

We decimated the Red Guard two decades ago yet we're still there. The Taliban don't have an air force. How many years have we been in Afganistan?

The mightiest army AND navy in the world was going to put down a local insurrection when they marched on Concord one morning.

Congressmen and their wives picnicked overlooking a creek called Bull Run at the start of a war that was to be over in no time at all.

Korea was a police action ... "over by Christmas" ... 60 years later we're not only still there, we've got ship's steaming into harm's way as we sleep.

RVN?

They didn't call it quits in the Balkans after their infrastructure ceased to exist. It was't until the British PM was calling up 30,000 reservists and Clinton changed his stance on troops going in that the locals had a change of heart.

That embargo of Iraq really had Saddam suing for peace as children in his country starved And died from a lack of medicines, didn't it?

The list is long. Your recollection viz a viz your strategy fuzzy.


By the way with AF resources committed to Iraq and Afganistan, the Straits of Hormuz, Syria?, guarding home skies since 9/11, besides the reduction in force over the years, just how many planes and crews are available NOW for your Stone Age Bombing Campaign? How much materiel is stockpiled in that theatre?

Why isolate that comment and attack it as if there was no explanation given for the comment. I disucssed the striking of dikes, key infrastructure that keeps virtually all of its farmlands from flooding. Diminishing their ability to porduce food for their citizens, let alone their Army and isolating them from the outside world to ensure they can't get help from others. One basic precept of human existence is that people require food to survive. Without it, there is little hope for military victory let alone sustainment of life. All of the conflicts you mentioned above involved the occupation of territory. I didn't suggest that. Indeed, I specifically excluded it from the above strategy. We have no strategic interest in occupying North Korea. Airstrikes would be incredibly effective for what we might try to accomplish in that city. While some are occupied in other parts of the country, the US military has the United States military operates more than 10,000 aircraft and more than 200 ships capable of projecting power with the use of missiles to any square foot of North Korea they chose. If there is no interest in sending troops in to an enemy's territory -- if our goal is to destroy the infrastructure that would eliminate the perceived threat that they pose -- the length of the conflict and the number of our casualties is greatly diminished.

 

[Kanye West]

If North Korea ever fired upon us they would face immediate military retaliation. Yet as one of our bright colige here said the would "get wiped off the face of the earth" or would they? They have a localized standing army of over 1.4 million. The united states does NOT have a standing army and currently has around 1.2 million active soldiers worldwide. So even if we were able to mobilize half of our troops we would still be out numbered 2-1. Socially they are an incredibly nationalistic society willing to die for their country. They are well trained, well armed and willing to fight. So in the end we may win the war but we will suffer heavy american casualties and it will be a painful experience for our country. I love this country, but we are facing perils in the upcoming years.

It's called the air force, missiles, and the Navy.