|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Quote:
Quote:
Naaa .... we have a Democrat in the white house .. thats a green light to our "enemies" ...
there just 'testing" the waters to see exacty where Obama falls on the scale between doormat - war monger ...
I agree.
I would tell N. Korea if the ship sails more than 200 miles from it's current position other than back to port, it will be found on the bottom.
I am tired of punks.
I'm kind of with yo peen - the more I read about lil kim and his loudmouth, smartass, idiotic statements, the more I would like to invite him over to my house.
Most of the time, little punk asses can be dealt with by ignoring them and not giving into them. Once in a while though, you need to beat the living hell out of a punk ass - the ones that go too far.
I think lil kim has pushed it about far enough - with his threats.
You can't have much of an army if the army can't eat. All that needs to be done is quit sending n.k. food. His own army will turn against him very quickly.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
Quote:
His own army will turn against him very quickly.
When there's not enough food... the guys with the guns get to eat.
Won't affect the army, will just starve out the populace.
~Lyuokdea
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Quote:
Quote:
His own army will turn against him very quickly.
When there's not enough food... the guys with the guns get to eat.
Won't affect the army, will just starve out the populace.
~Lyuokdea
Take that scenario 1 month down the road. At first, when the population can't eat, the army still will. 30 days later - the army is looking for food. They do one of 2 things: attack another country for food - or go after the leader that put them in this position.
Attacking another country would be fool hardy. They will die. Eliminating the person/administration that put them in that position would be easy.
On a side note - why is uh O trying to ban guns here in the u.s.? Well, not necessarily ban them.......but why are taxes on ammo going up? Why is the administration attempting to re-enact bans on guns - like guns with clips, or guns that can hold more than "x" amount of rounds?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
And totally off the subject - but something to think about: Will congress agree to live and die with the health insurance plan they want to pass? (if any of the sob's have bothered to read it when they vote on it). If not, why?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
Quote:
Take that scenario 1 month down the road. At first, when the population can't eat, the army still will. 30 days later - the army is looking for food. They do one of 2 things: attack another country for food - or go after the leader that put them in this position.
Ummm. contrary to popular belief, food can be grown in most countries, including north korea.
~Lyuokdea
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Quote:
Quote:
Take that scenario 1 month down the road. At first, when the population can't eat, the army still will. 30 days later - the army is looking for food. They do one of 2 things: attack another country for food - or go after the leader that put them in this position.
Ummm. contrary to popular belief, food can be grown in most countries, including north korea.
~Lyuokdea
Umm, they can't feed their people as is - how the hell are they going to feed their troops if they are at war and getting bombed?
Contrary to your opinion - food isn't grown overnight.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
Feeding the people, and feeding the army are two different things.
According to wiki, they grew 4.2 metric tons of food in 2004, the US never donated more than 700,000 metric tons, and no other country donated near that much. Which means, that they grow more than 80% of their food at home (closer to 95% today)
There are 22 million people in NK, and a little over 1 million actively in the army.
I'm pretty sure if you can generate food for 95% of your people, you can generate plenty of food for 5% of your people, if you so choose.
I'm really confused about what you're driving at here....if you only feed the army, they have 20x as much food as they need. Not sure how they're supposed to go starving. They're not going to lose food first, like I said, it's the poor and powerless that starve to death.
~Lyuokdea
Last edited by Lyuokdea; 06/25/09 07:59 PM.
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,531
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,531 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Naaa .... we have a Democrat in the white house .. thats a green light to our "enemies" ...
there just 'testing" the waters to see exacty where Obama falls on the scale between doormat - war monger ...
I agree.
I would tell N. Korea if the ship sails more than 200 miles from it's current position other than back to port, it will be found on the bottom.
I am tired of punks.
I'm kind of with yo peen - the more I read about lil kim and his loudmouth, smartass, idiotic statements, the more I would like to invite him over to my house.
Most of the time, little punk asses can be dealt with by ignoring them and not giving into them. Once in a while though, you need to beat the living hell out of a punk ass - the ones that go too far.
I think lil kim has pushed it about far enough - with his threats.
You can't have much of an army if the army can't eat. All that needs to be done is quit sending n.k. food. His own army will turn against him very quickly.
But how the hell are we going to convince China to stop sending them support? I'm sure a lot of food comes from their neighbor.
As much as I hate Li'l Kim, North Korea would be the biggest military threat we've faced out of everyone else we've gone up against.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989 |
Quote:
If Li'l Kim was smart.. the Kang Nam 1 would be loaded up with Rice and chop sticks and whatever else they have in North Korea to export... then you leak the intel that it's weapons and you dare anybody to come on board... then when they do, you make a big stink about how oppressed you are.... that's what I would do.
I mean if he really wants to rally the support of his own people and probably get some support from other sympathetic nations, that would be the best way to do it.
You are exactly right and that's why we are being cautious and waiting. Past Presidents simply paid "lil Kim" off so they could ignore the issue. Now that he does have about dozen nukes he's rattling them even more since we didnt give in. So like a kid we are putting him in timeout and let him cry in his room yelling "I hate you."
Next step would be to make sure US, Russia, and China agree on when to search any vessels. Preventing them from docking in the meantime. With out the threat of China backing him up... Lil Kim will come out of his room and say he's sorry. If he comes out yelling screaming, then we give him a spanking.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Quote:
Feeding the people, and feeding the army are two different things.
According to wiki, they grew 4.2 metric tons of food in 2004, the US never donated more than 700,000 metric tons, and no other country donated near that much. Which means, that they grow more than 80% of their food at home (closer to 95% today)
~Lyuokdea
Better check your numbers. First of all - everyone knows wiki is.........weird. Secondly, I like how you say they grew x amount, and the u.s only gave them x amount, so therefore they grow 95% of their food, simply because no other country donated as much as the u.s.
How's about this? Find out how much food was given to the north in total - then come back with the figures on how much they grow for themselves. K? Oh, just to clarify - show me the percentage of food they grow themselves - then show me the percentage of food they get given to them - by ALL the other countries.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989 |
Quote:
But how the hell are we going to convince China to stop sending them support? I'm sure a lot of food comes from their neighbor.
As much as I hate Li'l Kim, North Korea would be the biggest military threat we've faced out of everyone else we've gone up against.
Im not sure of the exact figures but we send N.Korea tons of food and energy. Not sure if its more then China but we pretty damn close if not more then them.
As far as a threat?, they are not much of a threat to us. They are a very big threat to our allies Japan and S. Korea.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
The point is that they need to grow like 10% of their own food, in order to feed their army. They do. They also, like any other country, have food stock piles for their army. You're not going to starve out a country. This isn't the middle ages. I love how you indict wiki, and my guesstimations, but then you counter with a completely ridiculous claim. Another way to get the same number: They grow 4.5 million metric tons of food, that's from a US Government document. The average person eats 435 pounds of food a year (at 2500 calories per day), per http://recipes.howstuffworks.com/question720.htm435 pounds of food is ~.2 metric tons, which means that they 4.5 million metric tons would feed 22.5 million people, i.e. about 95% of their population. Happy yet? ~Lyuokdea
Last edited by Lyuokdea; 06/25/09 08:25 PM.
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
Quote:
Dude - the evidence is in - n. korea cannot feed its population. Can they grow enough food to feed a million man army? Of course. That's rather beside the point, isn't it?
Nope...that was pretty much your original point.
Quote:
Dude - the evidence is in - n. korea cannot feed its population. Can they grow enough food to feed a million man army? Of course. That's rather beside the point, isn't it?
Can the million man army grow the food themselves? yup - but that takes the army strenght down.
Why would they have to make food...that's what they have farmers for.
And why do the farmers keep making food when they're hungry? Because the other guys have the guns.
That's how it works, that's how it always works.
~Lyuokdea
Last edited by Lyuokdea; 06/25/09 08:45 PM.
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Quote:
Quote:
Dude - the evidence is in - n. korea cannot feed its population. Can they grow enough food to feed a million man army? Of course. That's rather beside the point, isn't it?
Nope...that was pretty much your original point.
Quote:
Dude - the evidence is in - n. korea cannot feed its population. Can they grow enough food to feed a million man army? Of course. That's rather beside the point, isn't it?
Can the million man army grow the food themselves? yup - but that takes the army strenght down.
Why would they have to make food...that's what they have farmers for.
And why do the farmers keep making food when they're hungry? Because the other guys have the guns.
That's how it works, that's how it always works.
~Lyuokdea
Nah - that was your point my friend - that they can support the army food wise for now.
However, if push comes to shove, a country that can't feed its workers will not be able to feed its army. Perhaps we are agreeing, but not seeing it, or perhaps you are wrong. Either way ..........
Yes, as of today, n korea can feed its army. In a war situation, without the food aid and fuel aid coming in - n. korea is screwed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989 |
N. Korea cannot feed its own people by themselves ... you both win.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
In a war situation, North Korea will be destroyed within a month, food doesn't really enter the equation.
~Lyuokdea
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989 |
1 month??? Too optimistic.
It would take that long to move assets into place. The whole time they will be firing missiles at the Japan and S. Korea would be over run. Life expectancy of our troops in S. Korea is under 10 days for this scenario. We can easily win but at what cost to our allies? That is the question.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
When I say destroyed, I don't mean that we'd have troops chilling in the country. I mean that the majority of North Korea would be such a wasteland that the lack of farmers wouldn't really matter. There might be some sets of NK troops hunkered down in bunkers and still willing to fight.
But NK would be much different than Iraq. With Iraq, we had the opportunity to slowly pick at them with precisions strikes. In the long run, we knew we were going to have to win over a populace, and since Iraq was never a real threat to us, we could afford to go as slow as we want.
NK's nuclear capability, and their ability to charge into SK with a very strong land army, necessitates a massive (and more indiscriminate) aerial bombardment. The US+NATO aerial assault on NK would make "shock and awe" look like a fireworks show.
Now, I think SK would suffer heavy casualties, because on the ground, it's a fairly even battle between NK and SK forces, and there's a lot of firepower sitting on both sides of the DMZ.
~Lyuokdea
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989 |
I understood what you meant. But S. Korea only has half the amount of active troops as N. Korea. If the North strikes first it could very easily sway the balance of power to their direction. While we are still mobilizing our fleet. If they take over the south... then we get to be blamed when bombs miss targets and bombing positions in the south. The situation is not as easily remedied as you stated. Dont forget China wont like us having that much military firepower so close. This is a very sticky situation. Patience and caution is key for now.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Quote:
I understood what you meant. But S. Korea only has half the amount of active troops as N. Korea. If the North strikes first it could very easily sway the balance of power to their direction. While we are still mobilizing our fleet. If they take over the south... then we get to be blamed when bombs miss targets and bombing positions in the south. The situation is not as easily remedied as you stated. Dont forget China wont like us having that much military firepower so close. This is a very sticky situation. Patience and caution is key for now.
Very touchy situation indeed. However, I don't see China putting up much of a fight IF n. korea is the first to attack. After all, they have nothing to attack about. Now, if we go in and bomb n. korea, yes, I can see china, and russia, getting upset. If n. korea goes ballistic and countries retaliate, china and russia don't have any grounds for being upset.
S. Korea is really the country that should be in fear at this point - s. korea could take on the north, but many, many south koreans would die - short term. it would take a bit,but I think they'd win by themselves - IF they had the nerve to do what it takes to win.
However, with the u.s. bases nearby - IF the north attacked the south - it wouldn't be but 1 hour until we and the south had air superiorty - then throw in a few other countries contibuting - and north korea would be shell shocked. 1 million troops is impressive. Especially in a ground war.
However, 1 million troops are easy to find fromt he air.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989 |
Define air superiority in your terms Arch?
The North has done well to prepare for this scenario. They have more subs then we do, even though ours are vastly superior. But this would take some time to get our carriers close enough risk free for maximum effectiveness. They have tons of anti-aircraft capability and vastly superior rocket launch systems compared to the South.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Quote:
Define air superiority in your terms Arch?
The North has done well to prepare for this scenario. They have more subs then we do, even though ours are vastly superior. But this would take some time to get our carriers close enough risk free for maximum effectiveness. They have tons of anti-aircraft capability and vastly superior rocket launch systems compared to the South.
Good question.
Take a look at our air bases in that area. Would our response be instantaneous? No.
But within 1 hour of any attack on the south, we, and they, could have the north in a corner. Within 4 to 6 hours, we'd have jets all over the north.
And not for 1 minute do I think n.k.'s pilots or equipment could face off with ours. We'd knock down any radar the north had in short order.
We'd also knock out most communication towers as well. That would be one of the first targets - as it should be.
Air superiority - having the ability to fly over their airspace with relatively no return fire........and what fire they would have would be nothing more than someone aiming a gun at a plane flying 700 800 mph.
Don't get me wrong - south korea would suffer heavy civilian losses. But the south isn't anything to sneeze at either.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989 |
Just to give you an idea... the North has over 10k anti aircraft weaponery. They definitely have better defenses then Iraq did in the early 90's and much better equipment then Iraq did. It took us a few months of bombing and strategic targeting to gain air superiority in the first gulf war.... by your definition. It's not necessarily that their equipment is comparable to ours. It's the quantity that they have and our ability to get our assets into position. Our bombers would rule early on but it would take some time to be able to give air support for the South's army and to be effective.
I have no doubt we can handle this conflict but with many of our assets in the mideast it would really stretch the air force and navy very thin.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,663
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,663 |
I think you vastly underestimate the preparations that have already and are currently taking place.
The 7th fleet (Pacific ocean from Hawaii to the Indian ocean) is already in place. With stations in Japan, Guam, Hawaii and various other places in that region the ability to get forces in place is simple.
That's only the Navy. You get the folks coming from Anderson Air Force Base and the Marine Force recon which can mobilize anywhere in the world within hours and the additional military forces that are already in place and can (and make no doubt will) be re-routed from Afganistan it would be a very swift retaliation.
If NK strikes, it won't last very long. And if they decide to let loose a Nuke, well...that country may very well be glass before the first American steps foot on their heavily radiated soil.
KeysDawg
The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. - Carl Sagan
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Quote:
I think you vastly underestimate the preparations that have already and are currently taking place.
The 7th fleet (Pacific ocean from Hawaii to the Indian ocean) is already in place. With stations in Japan, Guam, Hawaii and various other places in that region the ability to get forces in place is simple.
That's only the Navy. You get the folks coming from Anderson Air Force Base and the Marine Force recon which can mobilize anywhere in the world within hours and the additional military forces that are already in place and can (and make no doubt will) be re-routed from Afganistan it would be a very swift retaliation.
If NK strikes, it won't last very long. And if they decide to let loose a Nuke, well...that country may very well be glass before the first American steps foot on their heavily radiated soil.
Pretty much. And the key is n. korea - lil kim - gets to decide his fate. If he nukes anyone, he goes down. He knows it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989 |
I'm not saying that those things havent happened. I asked Arch what he meant by air superiority. A carrier only carries X amount of F-18's/F-22's and support aircraft and Japan is only real viable launch point for Air Force fighter support. Regardless, by Arch's definition it would take some time to gain air superiority. I never said that we couldnt/wouldn't respond quickly. Just that it would take sometime to eliminate all targets for his definition. This is all hypothetical that we do this alone with no support from our allies or the UN.
I do disagree with one thing you said. We would not redeploy troops from Afghanistan in any large amount. If we do It would be limited special forces. Right now Afghanistan is like Iraq 5 years ago. It's summer and the taliban is in full effect. I can see us redeploying some out of Afghanistan after an air campaign. But not for initial response.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,960
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,960 |
then the billions of dollars GW spent for missle defense in the northwest would be tested, any reasonable mind knows that will never happen 
President - Fort Collins Browns Backers
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
You do realize that we can have bombers from here in the u.s. - planes from the U.S. - that can be over n. korea - in about 10 hours, if not less, don't you?
Throw in the bases we have closer - and trust me - air superiority wouldn't take long.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989 |
Quote:
Air superiority - having the ability to fly over their airspace with relatively no return fire........and what fire they would have would be nothing more than someone aiming a gun at a plane flying 700 800 mph.
Of course. They are in Missouri and California mostly. We still talking about 10's of thousands of targets. I'm going by your definition above.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
do u know that his last missile went 2400 miles ... thats 1/2 of how far Hawaii is .. so if he doubles that and amny believe his next launch a mere 2 months after his last one .. will at least half the distant left ... so at this rate before football starts he will have the capability to send a nuke to Hawaii ..
Having a missile that can reach Hawaii is one thing.. Having a nuke that you can place on that missile and still have it land in Hawaii is another.. Just because NK has a long range missile and nukes, does not mean that have nukes that can fit on said missiles.. so I wouldn't exactly say that the sky is falling quite yet..
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](http://i.imgur.com/FUKyw.png) "Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201 |
Paco, I think that you grossly underestimate our capabilities while overestimating theirs.
The long and short of it is this: We can hit harder, and see clearer, from farther away than they can. And the ROK forces at our side shares many of our capabilities, both air and ground, because we've been equipping them for the last 59 years.
Troop-wise, we can and would have at least a full Division of Marines landing on ROK soil within 18 hours.... that is the nearby Ready-MEF unit in Japan. There is also a full Battallion of either the 82nd Airborne or the 101st Airborne on alert at all times that can be anywhere in the world in 18 hours. I would put that battallion up against any full division of NK forces and expect a win. You cite the size of their army, but you don't realize that not only is the NATO forces there close to the same size (with ROK forces approaching 700,000), our technological superiority is a HUGE force multiplier. We can and will take on a force several times greater than our own and call it a fair fight... and win.
Aircraft from Japan, even fighter/interceptor craft and ground attack craft, can and would be there within 2 hours.
Carrier based aircraft would be sortied and on station within 45 minutes.
Local land-based aircraft would be up immediately, and I can guarantee that there is a permanent Alert presence in the air 24x7 right now... and we'd have B-52's carpet bombing them within 24 hours.
Every ship in the area, and that would likely be a decent portion of PacFleet at this point, that carries cruise missiles (which would be nearly every ship) would be launching multiple salvos, each one going to an individual target.
We would own those skies in very short order. One hour may be a bit optimistic, but 6 hours probably is not.... which means that if they attacked just before dawn, by lunch time they would have not protective umbrella above them and would be at the mercy of our aircraft.... no attack will last long in that environment.
Predator aircraft would be circling & patrolling for targets immediately as well... they are equally capable of taking out small vehicles as well as anti-air batteries.
Their SAM batteries would be troublesome, but not overly so.... and not for long. Any time they light one up, they could expect a radar-seeking missile to be inbound immediately from loitering aircraft. Once they realize this, they will leave their radars off most of the time, just as we saw in Iraq. That is almost as good as destroying them.
Additionally, we have those testy little stealth craft that can fly through their defenses with near impugnity.
We wouldn't worry about wiping out all of their air defenses at first, either... we would simply cut swaths through them that let us get larger forces safely to their targets.... things like supply depots, communication centers and command & control bunkers.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 8,767
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 8,767 |
NK just loves to rattle that sabre now and then and this is one of those times.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989 |
Quote:
Paco, I think that you grossly underestimate our capabilities while overestimating theirs.
Why everyone jumping on me? Reread my posts. I went by Arch's standards for when I asked "how did he define air superiority." Being ex-navy and currently in the army I am VERY aware of our capabilities.
Quote:
You cite the size of their army, but you don't realize that not only is the NATO forces there close to the same size (with ROK forces approaching 700,000), our technological superiority is a HUGE force multiplier. We can and will take on a force several times greater than our own and call it a fair fight... and win.
In my/Arch's scenario i said hypothetically we were doing it alone.
Are you saying that us and nato combined have 700k troops their with Korea? The South has approximately 500k active normally. I'm sure more have been activated in the past few weeks.
Quote:
We would own those skies in very short order. One hour may be a bit optimistic, but 6 hours probably is not....
6hours for real??? Even by my definition of air superiority which are much looser then Arch's... 6 hours is out of the question. I would say 5-7 days.
Quote:
We wouldn't worry about wiping out all of their air defenses at first, either... we would simply cut swaths through them that let us get larger forces safely to their targets.... things like supply depots, communication centers and command & control bunkers.
Agreed
I do think your missing some major things here.
-We would not attack them first meaning they get first volley.
-There missile capability is powerful enough and massive enough that our counter measures wont be able to get all of them. The US is safe but Japan and the South will be hit hard.
-Okinawa and our ships in the area would be first targeted. The ships probably being more capable of defending themselves. Our phalanx and anti missile defense systems should protect them well.
-They do have over 100 subs, they are definitely nowhere near ours in capability or state of the art, but like the russians in the cold war the sheer number would be enough to be somewhat effective. So losing a Carrier is a threat from subs.
NOWHERE have I said that we cant easily defeat them. The only thing that I have said is that our allies Japan and the South will take a huge beating until we can get enough assets in the region to counter balance their first strike. And that we would only pull special forces from Afghanistan, Like you said 101st and 82nd are on that list. If full scale war happens... It could probably take atleast a week to stop their ground forces advancing. 3-5 days to neutralize their helo's and aircraft. They have 1million active army and who knows how many have been activated since.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349 |
Quote:
Additionally, we have those testy little stealth craft that can fly through their defenses with near impugnity.
Nice post Prpl.
Another thing to consider, if god forbid it came down to it those stealth bombers do have the ability to carrrier nuclear warheads.
if Lil Kim decided to launch a nuuclear warhead at the United Staes,NK will have a hailstorm of fire rain down on their ass. When we put our minds to it the U.S. can tear some shtuff up.
KING
You may be in the drivers seat but God is holding the map. #GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201 |
I was Navy as well.
The ROK alone has 650k+ on active duty with over 3 million reserves. We have 28k+ in theater, with an easy 25-30k that can be there in under 24 hours, fully equipped and ready for bad things.
6 hours, yes. It may be a bit of a stretch, but I would feel confident that we could own their airspace within that timeframe. That is not to say that they would not still have aircraft, or be unable to launch a missle.... but that we would be able to travel through their airspace to accomplish our missions, particularly ground support, wherever we chose to. 5-7 days... that is more of an estimate to wipe out all air resistance, IMO.
They would definitely get first volley, but it isn't like it will be a surprise. We're on a alert already, and I can guarantee that at least one satellite is perma-tasked to them.
Their missiles don't worry me much. I view their capability as being similar to Germany's V2 program. More bark than bite.
Our ships, as you are well aware, would be fine. They first have to be able to find us, then they have to reach us, then they have to be able to acurately target us... and lastly they have to get past our defenses. No land based missile from them is going to do that. They aren't doing any of that without trying to run in on us with missile boats or aircraft... which would be a big giant warning flag to us.
Their subs? They may have a lot, but they are ALL older Soviet diesel boats (or designs based upon them)... and we had no trouble tracking ANY of those 20 years ago when I was in. Sure, they could send a bunch out after us, but they still have to get close enough to shoot, and I just don't see them getting inside a Carrier screen while we're alerted the way we are. I'm not sure when you served, but LAMPS helo's and such are even better now than they were two decades ago, and I know for a fact that the likes of P3's (which can fly out of Sasebo and loiter for up to 14 hours - and we probably have a few in ROK) have had their sonobuoy technologies drastically updated, and even carry some ASW weapons now. Additionally, those subs will likely have to contend with the 170-odd ROK ships that are much closer than ours.
You know as well as I do that when you're in those sorts of waters, it may not be "live fire" during peace time, but none of it is a drill... you watch everything as if is real and especially so in a time of ramped up tensions. Everything is set at Zebra and the blips are real.
Will there be a heavier than normal losses initially? Oh yeah, but nothing too terrible - as long as it stays conventional. The only element of surprise would be that they actually were stupid enough to attack. In order to have ANY hope of doing anything other than being obliterated, they would have to go whole hog with a full mobilization of all air, ground and sea... and there is just no way that we miss that level of activity.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989 |
I agree with you Prpl... we have the best sonar in the world. And that if they launch nukes that will be their biggest mistake. Im honestly not sure if we would respond in kind. I think we can do the job without it. It would just mean mass bombing with out concern for collateral damage. Which still would get the job done. I got out of the Navy in 96'. I was a nuke in the navy so tactically I'm not on the ball as much as with the Army. Got surface warfare but u and I know that means diddly squat. Been in the Army reserves for a few years and called to active duty 2003. Went back into the reserves 2006 and went active again last summer.
One thing i think u may have overlooked is that our fast attacks, although far superior, once they launch the first torpedo their cover is blown. Sonobouy's will be very effective defense against the subs. Even if we get 99% of them that still leaves a few that make it into the interior carrier defensive perimeter. Hypothetically speaking if they sent all they had at it.
I do disagree with one thing. Their missile tech is better then what you think. Can our patriots stop them... YES. Are they reliable in the first place... hmm??? but they have gotten better and would move up the % from the first gulf war of 40-50 to 75-85. There is a reason why we have been watching the North and what tech they have been giving to 3rd world countries. It's not as good as ours or Nato. But helluva lot better then Iraq's and Iran.
Just keep in mind that in an event of war with N. Korea our deterrent forces in the South have a life expectancy of less then 7days. Thats not me talking thats much smarter people then I and much higher up. Of course different scenarios will vary.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum N. Korea threatons US; World
Anticpates Missile
|
|
