Jump to content


Photo

War is brewing in Asia


  • Please log in to reply
143 replies to this topic

#21 Leonid

Leonid

    Immortal

  • Atomican't
  • 40,508 posts

Posted 15 April 2017 - 02:57 AM

That's a very America centric position to take.


It's a very realistic position to take. The fact that it aligns with an American view of things is of no more import than it is to observe that America complaining about electoral interference is the kettle calling the pot black - a view that aligns with (for example), Iran.
 

Neither the Chinese, nor the North Koreans represent a serious military threat to America.  But South Korea, a population of 51 million people, would be seriously fucked up by any conflict that was started.  Should we view these humans as disposable and inferior?


Yes, Seoul is in range of the North's artillery. But the North have no real first strike capability.

And their artillery is silence-able via naval and air resources. The North Koreans wouldn't be able to get across the DMZ before being wiped out.

Will some South Koreans die? Sure. But it'll be a short war.

In fact I suspect that the only reason North Korea still exists is because US/China relations are reasonably good. If The Donald makes the Chinese an offer they can't refuse - ie unification of Korea and all US troops out, would the Chinese refuse? Better to have a predictable US ally on the border than an unpredictable fatso with a messiah complex?
"I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees." - Stephane Charbonnier (1967-2015)

"If liberty means anything, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell

#22 chrisg

chrisg

    Immortal

  • Super Hero
  • 34,615 posts
  • Location:Perth

Posted 15 April 2017 - 02:32 PM

Hmm,

 

Perhaps Leo you should have a read about the Korean war, the North, with assistance from China, damned near won and very nearly pushed the U.S. forces off the peninsula.

 

Would that re-occur?

 

I don't know, but fanaticism knows few boundaries...According to a now very elderly friend of mine who was there in the thick of it they just came in waves and did not care how many of them died. Insane, but I've no reason to doubt him.

 

Cheers


"Specialisation is for Insects" RAH

#23 Leonid

Leonid

    Immortal

  • Atomican't
  • 40,508 posts

Posted 15 April 2017 - 05:07 PM

Back then the USA didn't have geographic boundaries so the waves of men thing worked.

Now with the earthworks in the DMZ such things are effectively impossible.
"I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees." - Stephane Charbonnier (1967-2015)

"If liberty means anything, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell

#24 tastywheat

tastywheat

    Primarch

  • Atomican
  • 1,842 posts

Posted 15 April 2017 - 06:00 PM

Back then the USA didn't have geographic boundaries so the waves of men thing worked.

Now with the earthworks in the DMZ such things are effectively impossible.

 

 

So we bomb and barrage the shit out of them from afar.

 

  1. How do we retrieve the 8 or so nuclear weapons, and distributed stockpiles of chemical weapons, so that they can be safely deactivated
  2. How do control the intellectual property used to make more devices, and other WMDs
  3. How do we deal with the millions of refugees such a conflict has the potential to create, many of whom may be actually be agents of North Korea with malevolent intentions.


#25 Leonid

Leonid

    Immortal

  • Atomican't
  • 40,508 posts

Posted 15 April 2017 - 06:17 PM

We do what we did in WW2.

We do what the Sri Lankan did to end the Tamil Tigers.
"I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees." - Stephane Charbonnier (1967-2015)

"If liberty means anything, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell

#26 tastywheat

tastywheat

    Primarch

  • Atomican
  • 1,842 posts

Posted 15 April 2017 - 06:27 PM

We do what we did in WW2.

 

Complete occupation, which necessarily involves taking the war beyond the DMZ, meaning the combat conditions would be similar to the 1950s Korean war?



#27 Leonid

Leonid

    Immortal

  • Atomican't
  • 40,508 posts

Posted 16 April 2017 - 02:20 AM

We do what we did in WW2.

 
Complete occupation, which necessarily involves taking the war beyond the DMZ, meaning the combat conditions would be similar to the 1950s Korean war?


Slightly different capabilities among the sides these days, wouldn't you say?
"I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees." - Stephane Charbonnier (1967-2015)

"If liberty means anything, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell

#28 tastywheat

tastywheat

    Primarch

  • Atomican
  • 1,842 posts

Posted 16 April 2017 - 03:06 AM

Slightly different capabilities among the sides these days, wouldn't you say?

 

Sure, but that negates your previous argument regarding the benefits of geographic boundaries.

 

Another point to consider is that Afghan herders have kept the full force of the US military occupied for the past 16 years.  China backed North Korea would be at least an order of magnitude more sophisticated.



#29 chrisg

chrisg

    Immortal

  • Super Hero
  • 34,615 posts
  • Location:Perth

Posted 16 April 2017 - 10:48 AM

The military capabilities if push came to shove have absolutely nothing to do with the DMZ, those zones maintain peace, they do not stop a war once it starts.

 

With somewhere around 600 strike aircraft available and a significant landing ship capability to put tanks and APCs ashore before you even think about para-dropping I really don't think NK has ever evaluated how quickly it could get its ass kicked - which is not to say it would not be a very bloody conflict.

 

On the up-side they seem unable to even successfully launch an ICBM and just what that military parade was about - I'll bet you those "missiles" were just props, empty shells, a trick Moscow did for decades.

 

Cheers


"Specialisation is for Insects" RAH

#30 Leonid

Leonid

    Immortal

  • Atomican't
  • 40,508 posts

Posted 16 April 2017 - 12:13 PM

Slightly different capabilities among the sides these days, wouldn't you say?

 
Sure, but that negates your previous argument regarding the benefits of geographic boundaries.
 
Another point to consider is that Afghan herders have kept the full force of the US military occupied for the past 16 years.  China backed North Korea would be at least an order of magnitude more sophisticated.


Ah but that's because Afghan goat herders aren't a military.

Would the North really blend it's soldiers among the civilian population? Maybe. And maybe it will be a similar conflict.

But if it does, then there's no artillery and no danger to Seoul.

In which case we go to plan B: total war and bombing the North's cities a la Dresden and Hamburg.
"I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees." - Stephane Charbonnier (1967-2015)

"If liberty means anything, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell

#31 chrisg

chrisg

    Immortal

  • Super Hero
  • 34,615 posts
  • Location:Perth

Posted 17 April 2017 - 01:20 PM

With what Leo?

 

Seriously, we do not have 1,000 bomber capabilities any more. 21 B-2s I think and so valuable you don't use them lightly, well under 100 B1s and less than 60 B-52s.

 

The era of the strategic conventional bomber is pretty much over, B-2s are mostly a deterrent, B-1s are extremely useful in places like Afghanistan because they can come up from Diego Garcia and hang around for hours under FAC direction, -52's are a last ditch weapon have been for a long time, I was amazed the last time I was in Vietnam how many they had brought down, and that was a long time ago.

 

Sure you can turn loose strike fighters but it is a completely different form of offensive combat to saturation bombing and likely to end up involving a lot of loses for little outcome.

 

I'm not at all sure global opinion would tolerate saturation bombing of civilian targets in this day and age even there was the capability anyway.

 

Somewhere here I have pictures that my dad took in London about 1942 I think of the sky black with outgoing bombers, more poignant is the ones he also took of the survivors, many trailing smoke, coming back a few hours later.

 

Cheers


"Specialisation is for Insects" RAH

#32 Leonid

Leonid

    Immortal

  • Atomican't
  • 40,508 posts

Posted 17 April 2017 - 03:35 PM

The world will tolerate anything they can't see.

A few weeks ago we bombed some place in Mosul, 200 civilians dead. But because there weren't reporters at the scene, everyone's already forgotten about it.

Israel kills 3 kids on a beach playing among Hamas naval military installations and it's news for weeks because every reporter is in there, covering every inch of the joint.

The media and the UN are the reason the world is so fucked up. We're not allowed to finish wars any more.

All that does is perpetuate the conflict. Look what happens when a war is allowed to finish between a civilian government and terrorists - LTTE.

As for saturation bombing, sure we don't have that many B-2s or B-52s any more but we have A-10s as well now. Sure they're not as good, but they do quite a nice job with infantry, artillery, tanks, etc.

The other advantage we have is that the North has absolutely nothing. After a very short air war (a la 1967) we'll have total sky supremacy.

For fucks sake, at that point you could take a page out of Assad's book and start barrel bombing the North Korean troops.

But to your question as to how we'd reduce the North to rubble... may I suggest a few thermobaric weapons - they weren't available during WW2 but they're extremely effective against people and structures.

BLU-96, MOAB, etc.
"I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees." - Stephane Charbonnier (1967-2015)

"If liberty means anything, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell

#33 tastywheat

tastywheat

    Primarch

  • Atomican
  • 1,842 posts

Posted 17 April 2017 - 04:34 PM

The other advantage we have is that the North has absolutely nothing. After a very short air war (a la 1967) we'll have total sky supremacy.

 

What makes you so sure China won't involve itself?  That's what all the analysts are worried about.  For example:

 

Will China intervene in North Korea?

 

The second to last thing China wants is a new Korean war. But the last thing China wants is a united Korea under South Korean leadership. China's Communist Party leadership has learned the lessons of 1989-1991, when German reunification ultimately pushed the borders of NATO some 1000 kilometres to the east and Soviet communism was thrown into the dustbin of history.

If China does intervene in North Korea, it won't be to topple the Kim regime and promote peaceful reunification. It will be to prevent a collapse of the Kim regime in the face of domestic mismanagement and American pressure. Kim may go, but China will make sure that the regime remains. The long-term consequences of any such intervention are anyone's guess.



#34 Leonid

Leonid

    Immortal

  • Atomican't
  • 40,508 posts

Posted 17 April 2017 - 04:56 PM

You know... You're right. Predicting what a despicable dictatorship would do with regards to a massive liability, has always been a game of chess.

But there is another apsect to this.

Is the weight of a pain in the arse nuclear-armed fatso on the border sufficiently acceptable when weighed against a volatile new president who wants to make deals?

I don't claim to be a China expert but I can't see how a nuclear-armed North Korea vs a volatile and unpredictable US president - is in their best interests?

Plus the US has so many good bargaining chips and a president who wants to stop deploying forces.

Imagine a deal:
1. The North is obliterated
2. South Korea occupies the North with full reunification in a few years
3. Korea remains a US ally
4. All US troops leave
5. US dismantles THAAD.

What does China lose in this?
"I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees." - Stephane Charbonnier (1967-2015)

"If liberty means anything, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell

#35 tastywheat

tastywheat

    Primarch

  • Atomican
  • 1,842 posts

Posted 17 April 2017 - 05:02 PM

Is the weight of a pain in the arse nuclear-armed fatso on the border sufficiently acceptable when weighed against a volatile new president who wants to make deals?

I don't claim to be a China expert but I can't see how a nuclear-armed North Korea vs a volatile and unpredictable US president - is in their best interests?

 

China have just ceased importing North Korean coal (their main export), so it looks like Xi is at least attempting to resolve the conflict.  A point I think we can both agree on is that it's not enough to get NK to agree to halt its nuclear program, Kim Fuckwit is still going to be an ongoing liability.

 

One of the few things I'll give the Chinese government credit for is that they plan for the long term.  Take their developments in the South China sea.  They're sneaking them in now because they anticipate future conflict with their neighbours, and because right now, they can.  Eventually, we're going to hit a resource crunch, and China will need all the sub-sea hydrocarbons and Rare Earth it can get.  

 

A unified Korea allied with the US allows THAAD systems to be installed on their doorstep.  It reduces the airspace buffer.  It facilitates a land based invasion.  If you're anticipating eventual war with the US, and don't give a shit about other countries, it would make sense to put up with an unstable dictatorship to maintain your strategic advantage over the short term.


Edited by tastywheat, 17 April 2017 - 05:05 PM.


#36 chrisg

chrisg

    Immortal

  • Super Hero
  • 34,615 posts
  • Location:Perth

Posted 17 April 2017 - 05:50 PM

The world will tolerate anything they can't see.

A few weeks ago we bombed some place in Mosul, 200 civilians dead. But because there weren't reporters at the scene, everyone's already forgotten about it.

Israel kills 3 kids on a beach playing among Hamas naval military installations and it's news for weeks because every reporter is in there, covering every inch of the joint.

The media and the UN are the reason the world is so fucked up. We're not allowed to finish wars any more.

All that does is perpetuate the conflict. Look what happens when a war is allowed to finish between a civilian government and terrorists - LTTE.

As for saturation bombing, sure we don't have that many B-2s or B-52s any more but we have A-10s as well now. Sure they're not as good, but they do quite a nice job with infantry, artillery, tanks, etc.

The other advantage we have is that the North has absolutely nothing. After a very short air war (a la 1967) we'll have total sky supremacy.

For fucks sake, at that point you could take a page out of Assad's book and start barrel bombing the North Korean troops.

But to your question as to how we'd reduce the North to rubble... may I suggest a few thermobaric weapons - they weren't available during WW2 but they're extremely effective against people and structures.

BLU-96, MOAB, etc.

It's not the weapons, FAEs are very effective but delivery is the issue.

 

The USAF keeps trying to get rid of the A-10 and its numbers are down as well, but it's a tank killer, not a strategic bomber, very ill- suited to task. No, if you wanted to go heavy bomb assault, which I don't think is such a good idea, you;d have to go see what might be stored up at Davis Monthan and then see if anyone still knows how to fly let alone maintain them.

 

Cheers


"Specialisation is for Insects" RAH

#37 Jeruselem

Jeruselem

    Guru

  • Atomican
  • 13,679 posts
  • Location:Not Trump-Land

Posted 17 April 2017 - 06:49 PM

http://www.smh.com.a...415-gvloj5.html

Nk missile trial fails, missile explodes on launch

Cortana at your service


#38 chrisg

chrisg

    Immortal

  • Super Hero
  • 34,615 posts
  • Location:Perth

Posted 18 April 2017 - 03:58 AM

http://www.smh.com.a...415-gvloj5.html

Nk missile trial fails, missile explodes on launch

...Such a pity Kim Fuckwit was not down-range in the blast-zone  at the time...

 

Cheers


"Specialisation is for Insects" RAH

#39 Jeruselem

Jeruselem

    Guru

  • Atomican
  • 13,679 posts
  • Location:Not Trump-Land

Posted 18 April 2017 - 05:04 PM

http://www.abc.net.a...s-in-nt/8450218

 

2500 US marines in the NT, I feel safer now ... not that we're in NK nuke missile range, wait ...


Cortana at your service


#40 chrisg

chrisg

    Immortal

  • Super Hero
  • 34,615 posts
  • Location:Perth

Posted 18 April 2017 - 06:57 PM

http://www.abc.net.a...s-in-nt/8450218

 

2500 US marines in the NT, I feel safer now ... not that we're in NK nuke missile range, wait ...

:)

 

Should be doing wonders for the hookers income :)

 

I would not worry about anything sub-orbital out of NK, that's why THAAD is there, it actually works, I've just been reading the latest trial reports, 90 plus % success rate and it is designed to launch in salvos anyway.

 

Cheers


Edited by chrisg, 18 April 2017 - 06:58 PM.

"Specialisation is for Insects" RAH




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users