Would you support an "Iraq-Style" invasion of North Korea?

[amadeus]

Is the possible death toll of Northern Korean civilians something that bother you at all?

Had it occured to you at all that Kim Jong Il has the blood of 4 million people on his hands?

 

[downtown]

No, i think it would be an awful idea. We dont have the money, we dont have the troops, and it wouldnt really advance US policy goals...not to mention all the people that would die. There are better solutions to the problem

 

[MobBoss]

No, i think it would be an awful idea. We dont have the money, we dont have the troops, and it wouldnt really advance US policy goals...not to mention all the people that would die. There are better solutions to the problem

Well, I am going to sit on the fence on this one for a variety of reasons.

If North Korea ever fulfills one of its muliple threats - like shooting a missle into Japan for instance - by treaty we would have no choice but to engage in a war with them. If the NK leadership thought as you do Matt - that the US just cant do it, then exactly what is preventing them from doing what they threaten?

I disagree that we dont have the money or troops - but I do agree there are better solutions to the problem.

Now then, if such a thing actually did happen, I assure you, the US would not be beat in a matter of months despite all of the wishful thinking of those that desire such a thing.

The force composition and tactics of Korea are very, very, well known to the US military. We have basically 50 years of war plans on how to beat them. Their military forces...while large, are still equipped with many soviet style arms, not much unlike the Iraqi forces we rolled over. Their tactics are all still soviet based as well, relying on mass fires of artillery to do damage. I assure you, while we may not have the numbers they have, our technology in fire control and direction/detection are far, far superior.

The main obstacles in North Korea is the rough terrain and lack of MSRs (Major Supply Routes). However, our forces are far more mobile than theirs and we can use that against them by sealing off areas to reinforcement by destroying the Highways (MSRs).

Also, I am not so positive that China would intervene in such a conflict as they did in the 1950s. They dont like Kim anymore than we do and they do realize he is nuts....

The United States is considered the worlds only superpower for a reason. That reason is military might. If North Korea thought for an instant that we couldnt deliver on our promise of meeting their agression head on, they would steamroll right into South Korea in an attempt to overrun it.

 

[downtown]

Well, I am going to sit on the fence on this one for a variety of reasons.

If North Korea ever fulfills one of its muliple threats - like shooting a missle into Japan for instance - by treaty we would have no choice but to engage in a war with them. If the NK leadership thought as you do Matt - that the US just cant do it, then exactly what is preventing them from doing what they threaten?

I disagree that we dont have the money or troops - but I do agree there are better solutions to the problem.

Now then, if such a thing actually did happen, I assure you, the US would not be beat in a matter of months despite all of the wishful thinking of those that desire such a thing.

The force composition and tactics of Korea are very, very, well known to the US military. We have basically 50 years of war plans on how to beat them. Their military forces...while large, are still equipped with many soviet style arms, not much unlike the Iraqi forces we rolled over. Their tactics are all still soviet based as well, relying on mass fires of artillery to do damage. I assure you, while we may not have the numbers they have, our technology in fire control and direction/detection are far, far superior.

The main obstacles in North Korea is the rough terrain and lack of MSRs (Major Supply Routes). However, our forces are far more mobile than theirs and we can use that against them by sealing off areas to reinforcement by destroying the Highways (MSRs).

Also, I am not so positive that China would intervene in such a conflict as they did in the 1950s. They dont like Kim anymore than we do and they do realize he is nuts....

The United States is considered the worlds only superpower for a reason. That reason is military might. If North Korea thought for an instant that we couldnt deliver on our promise of meeting their agression head on, they would steamroll right into South Korea in an attempt to overrun it.

Perhaps I mispoke. If NK attacked say, Japan, then yes, we would (and should), intervene, and I think we would win. Its a cost/benefit sort of thing. Right now, I think it would be lousy idea.

Our military is already stretched with Iraq. If we had to commit troops to NK, I feel that we would have to
a) move some troops from Iraq to NK, jeopardizing the Iraq mission
b) have a draft

Neither seem very attractive do they? Not to mention the cost in money!
Personally, i'm hoping that China can help us out here, and throw some weight around to keep NK in check. I dont think the chineese want to see another state with nukes, and without the qualms about using them. I dont think China would go in and intervene like they did in the 1950's against us or anything.

Personally, i dont really have a good solution. If I did, I'd dorp out of college and work at a Think Tank. I just know that a full invansion, right now, (or in the near future), is a really bad call

 

[MobBoss]

Perhaps I mispoke. If NK attacked say, Japan, then yes, we would (and should), intervene, and I think we would win. Its a cost/benefit sort of thing. Right now, I think it would be lousy idea.

Well, what if the UN adopted a resolution to use force if necessary if NK didnt comply with the worlds wishes?

Our military is already stretched with Iraq. If we had to commit troops to NK, I feel that we would have to
a) move some troops from Iraq to NK, jeopardizing the Iraq mission
b) have a draft

I think you are wrong on all counts here. How many people do we have in Iraq? Roughly 130,000. The United States Miltiary consists of about 1.8 million active members with another 860,000 in the reserve http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Military so basically your are talking about under 5% of our total strength in Iraq. Thats not "stretched too thin"...you have been listening to guys like Murtha too much.

 

[nonconformist]

If you like your freedom fries with liberal amounts of fission on them, yeah, sure.

 

[downtown]

Well, what if the UN adopted a resolution to use force if necessary if NK didnt comply with the worlds wishes?



I think you are wrong on all counts here. How many people do we have in Iraq? Roughly 130,000. The United States Miltiary consists of about 1.8 million active members with another 860,000 in the reserve http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Military so basically your are talking about under 5% of our total strength in Iraq. Thats not "stretched too thin"...you have been listening to guys like Murtha too much.

Ha-ha. That wouldnt matter to me much actually...UN force basically means = US anyways.

Does that 1.8 million mean just combat troops, or does that include service personnel? What about those stationed in SK, Germany, Japan, Iraq, Washington DC...etc etc...how many troops can we just plunk up and throw to North Korea? I figured if we had that many, than issues like Stop-Loss wouldnt be a big deal, and we wouldnt have to dig so deep into the reserves

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

I think the costs would be greater than the gain (for example, I think they could flatten Seoul; in Iraq I wasn't worried about Kuwait City being hurt by anything other than the occasional Scud).

I will defer to South Korea, who at the time doesn't want it.

 

[MobBoss]

Ha-ha. That wouldnt matter to me much actually...UN force basically means = US anyways.

Does that 1.8 million mean just combat troops, or does that include service personnel? What about those stationed in SK, Germany, Japan, Iraq, Washington DC...etc etc...how many troops can we just plunk up and throw to North Korea? I figured if we had that many, than issues like Stop-Loss wouldnt be a big deal, and we wouldnt have to dig so deep into the reserves

The number is total military force from all over the world.

Btw, not all units have stop-loss in effect and in fact, very few are affected by it. Stop-loss only goes into effect once a unit is identified/selected to be deployed in a matter of months. Stop-loss is not as big a deal as you think it is I believe.

 

[Princeps]

Do I support "Iraq-style" invasion?

Hell no. The North Koreans are artillery distance away from the capitol of South Korea. The casualties of such war would be enourmous, nuclear weapons or not.

They have millions of soldiers, quite well armed and a large army. Their tanks are probably more advanced than those of Iraq's. Their armour are old t-62 tanks, but highly modified, so I doubt they are push-overs. They have a huge amount of artillery, capable of leveling the Southern capitol.

US casualties would probably be tens of thousands, combined with the casualties of the southern Koreans and civilians on both sides... The war would be a bloodbath. I think.

 

[BirraImperial]

Not to mention that North Korea could have
intercontinental missiles capable of reaching the US west coast.
http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/pdf/060321.pdf

 

[BasketCase]

It be suicidal. Just let the collapse after the dear leader dies.

Not likely to happen, considering that this has happened to North Korea a few times already.

Currenty NK hermit kingdom is hemorging and is unlikley to last much longer.

See above.

And, if North Korea does collapse--where's the basis for assuming it will be a peaceful collapse? Containment was precisely the strategy the Free World used against the Soviet Union. The strategy took seventy years to work, during which around 20 million people died at the hands of the Soviets, and as if fate was laughing at the rest of the world for trying to avoid a war, we got one anyway.

 

[FriendlyFire]

And, if North Korea does collapse--where's the basis for assuming it will be a peaceful collapse? Containment was precisely the strategy the Free World used against the Soviet Union. The strategy took seventy years to work, during which around 20 million people died at the hands of the Soviets, and as if fate was laughing at the rest of the world for trying to avoid a war, we got one anyway.

And the alternative Basketcase ?
We arent taking about some backwards broken nation, the USSR was an imensely powerful superpower armed with thousands of nuclear weapons.

How do you propose we defeat it ?

 

[cairo140]

Considering current war circumstances and the situation in North Korea, I don't see a war even possible. If Bush sends soldiers in there, it's going to result in so many casualities that the American public will go beserk. If Bush does the "smart" choice and drops the bomb to kill some Korean citizens, the rest of the world will be pissed (although unlikely to do anything about it). Either way, Bush has no reason to attain control of North Korea.

 

[Xanikk999]

Whilst I suspect that have a pretty easy time finding WMD's the links to 9-11 mightn't be as easy to fabricate

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO. Are you nuts, what makes you think it would be any different from the last time? Besides of course you couldn't, the UN wouldn't support it this time

Im not saying i dont agree with you or anything but..

What kind of power does the U.N have over the U.S?

Would they impose trade embargos against us?

Or would the EU invade us?

 

[ThePrankMonkey]

i still havent seen the definition for "iraq-style invasion" so i cant answer this question...

 

[KyleNumbers]

Anyone that would support an "Iraq-Style" invasion of North Korea is insane.

However, I wouldn't be so against it if we had an exit strategy, better devotion from the people, less scandals... etc.

I'm sure once Bush has a bowel movement all over our upcoming war with Iran, he'll start something with North Korea that the next president won't be able to finish... and then comes China

 

[Xanikk999]

i still havent seen the definition for "iraq-style invasion" so i cant answer this question...

Actually i dont see that as a bad term. The U.S did a fantastic job of taking down the saddam regime.

.... On the otherhand we have the insurgents to fight. Which is a different problem.

So if you look at just the invasion part you have to admit we did a SUPER job.

How many casualties did we have when we took baghdad? Exactly.

 

[ThePrankMonkey]

Actually i dont see that as a bad term. The U.S did a fantastic job of taking down the saddam regime.

.... On the otherhand we have the insurgents to fight. Which is a different problem.

So if you look at just the invasion part you have to admit we did a SUPER job.

How many casualties did we have when we took baghdad? Exactly.

i just want to know what they mean by iraq-style invasion. they asked about an iraq style invasion but didnt give any details as to what that means.

if i dont what they mean i feel like im answering a loaded question where it blows up in my face no matter how i answer it.

 

[KyleNumbers]

I took the term "Iraq-style" invasion to mean the whole war, and the problems with the insurgency, and answered it accordingly. I'm pretty sure that's how the poster intended it to be taken anyway, but I could be wrong.