Can the US and South Korea take North Korea conventionally?

This has been discussed countless times. We'd demolish their conventional forces BUT they would very likely unleash their WMD arsenal as a last desperate weapon and of course there's the thing about their rumored massive artillery that would blast Seoul into rubble. We don't know if it's really true or not (it may not be) but who wants to find out?

America could take NK in a conventional war, even without SK, Jap, and Aussie aid. It's questionable as to whether or not they could stabilise the country, but ending the current regime and takung out the military would not be a problem. The biggest concern is Chinese intervention on behalf of NK.

Yeah they can destroy NK pretty easy. I dont think they can save seoul though.

>>78196300
>The biggest concern is Chinese intervention on behalf of NK

We fought them before and held them back to the DMZ, but that was before they had nuclear weapons.

Having said that, I doubt we'd actually provoke China by going north of the DMZ with ground troops, most likely any action would be limited to air strikes.

>>78196300
Chinese intervention is impossible. It would literally mean ww3 and nobody wants that. Biggest concern is massive cost and massive civilian casualties.

>>78196470
As I see it, it's more likely China will simply occupy North Korea themselves and install a completely pliant puppet government they can control.

>>78196075
>Also Turnbull promises if war happens, we'll be sent to die alongside Americans. Yay.
Good it's about time you faggots did something.

>>78196395
Yes, Canadians and Australians held back the Chinese army for 3 days at kapyong despite being vastly outnumbered, outflanked, and out gunned, saving the UN command centre in the process. I don't believe China would want a fight with America and will avoid it, but it is the only real threat to American victory in a conventional war.

>>78196288
>and of course there's the thing about their rumored massive artillery that would blast Seoul into rubble. We don't know if it's really true or not (it may not be) but who wants to find out?
It's not true. They could damage it with some pieces but not come close to leveling it.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/could-north-korea-annihilate-seoul-its-artillery-20345

>>78196535
>Chinese intervention is impossible

-- Douglas MacArthur, September 1950

>>78196608
The flips fucked the Chinese up too while vastly outnumbered.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Yultong

>>78196075
The worst thing you guys can do is underestimate koreas nuclear arsenal. Intel on North Korea is notoriously shit.

In a conventional war, with no intervention from Russia or china? North Korea will be rolled over in a few months. The casualties will be very high with artillery fire, chemical and bio weapons. Us forces will have to be very careful not to walk into a town or city that doesn't have a hidden nuclear weapon.

NK subs will try to sink anything they can while all icbms and irbms will be launched and the us will have to pray their missile defence stops most of them.

If nk puts a nuke into a mini sub, expect a port city to get Allah akbarred.

China has extensive business operations in North Korea, mainly in extracting raw materials and they would sooner not have that disturbed.

>>78196075
>Also Turnbull promises if war happens, we'll be sent to die alongside Americans

Good, you know your place.

>>78197014
China has more extensive business operations with America and the west and woukd like to see them disturbed even less.

>>78197132
This is why America has so few true allies, just reluctant sychophant vassals and enemies.

A conventional war would lead to a gorillion casualties.

>>78197160
Well I guess we can all play this game. USA has extensive business operations in China, and would like to see the disturbed even less.

>>78197283
But that will only bring jobs to america :^)

>>78197268
For NK and SK, probably not for Americans. This would essentially be a hot Cold War. America is great at taking out governments and militaries and NKoteans live behind an iron curtain, they aren't religious fanatics like in the middle east who are aware of western lifestyles and often reject them, they are likely to lose a lot of the fight in them when tbey notice the disparity between their shithole and the rest of earth and the extent of the propaganda that has held them back.

>>78197283
The point is that if forced to choose sides, China is economically less likely to side with NK. Although they might do so on a political basis fearing American control in the region.

>>78197517
China just said if NK strikes first China wouldn't stop the United States from attacking and would remain neutral.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-china-media-idUSKBN1AR005

>>78197600
NK won't strike first

>>78197420
It would disrupt American production on their own since Americans are already dependant on Chinese goods to manufacture their products. the economies are entwined, it isn't so easy to assume the loss of manufacturing in china will be a net positive to the American economy.

>>78197635
It seems this is what Trump wants and

>>78197233
t. Zhang

>>78197600
Either scenario would lead to US/South Korean military force north of the DMZ, something China claims they will intervene to prevent so they're talking out of both sides of their mouth here.

>>78199075
It's all talk. China would have to have a death wish to fight alongside North Korea. They're not going to risk World War III for half a peninsula that hates their guts. At the very most, they'd just supply arms, intel, and food to the North Koreans, but even that would be unlikely and wouldn't do much to defend an attack against North Korea. It's a bluff, and I hope Trump calls them on it.

I can't imagine China would just sit and do nothing if US troops approached the Yalu River. They've quite persistently and repeatedly said we can't come north of the DMZ. Whether they're bluffing or not, we don't know but I would rather not find out.

MacArthur found out the hard way and that was back before China had nuclear weapons.

>>78199138
They wouldn't be risking World War III.

Just like the first time around, the US would refrain from attacking Chinese soil.

If China felt safe enough from direct US attack to join the North Korean side the first time back when the US had nukes and China didn't, what would be different now to change that?

>>78199468
>They've quite persistently and repeatedly said we can't come north of the DMZ
I can take that as fair and believable, although South Korean troops they'd have a somewhat harder time objecting to (after all, it technically is their country). No, I still think if war breaks out that China will simply occupy North Korea themselves and install a satellite government.

>>78197445
Unfortunately that doesn't guarantee that North Koreans will somehow surrender and join South Korean as brothers or anything. There is this ugly emotion called envy you might have heard of it.

North Koreans who live in South Korea now (as refugees) are notoriously bitter and poorly integrated. And that's despite enjoying generous welfare and assistance which North Koreans wouldn't enjoy after unification.

>>78199587
We didn't bomb Chinese territory in the Korean War because we thought the Soviets would intervene and start World War III. Back then, we just kind of assumed the entire communist bloc was a monolithic entity controlled from Moscow when it wasn't the case.

Though the CCP hadn't consolidated power that well yet at the time, they were still busy suppressing KMT holdouts and we could have destabilized them fairly easily with bombing campaigns.

>>78199138
Not even Russia and Iran are backing Pyongyang at this point. China is practically alone in still being an ally (of sorts).

Some guy claimed that China is encouraging Kim to do something very minor so US gets engaged without an actual retaliation and then China can go fight against India.

Last time China fought against India and won was when US and USSR were busy in Cuba.

The over confidence is astounding here. We know for a fact that America is better equipped technologically and logistically in war. but none of you talk about political resolve. Can America stomach a vietnam like war but in a grander scale? America can stomach wars like Iraq and to some extent Afghanistan but are they prepared for a war involving nuclear, chemical, and biological warfare? And to an extent not even just with North Korea but with China?

I mean, this isn't a war to defend American clay, can you convince your populace to die, potentially greater then Vietnam, for someone else?

In this regard I think china has a much stronger hand.

>>78199626
^This. It's probably bluff for the most part. China really doesn't have any love of the Kim regime, only their own strategic/business interests. If war happened, they'll probably just occupy North Korea themselves rather than allow US troops north of the DMZ.

>>78200994
Nobody wants war to happen, Zhang. Everyone up to and including James Mattis has said a war in Korea would be disastrous and involve massive devastation and loss of human life.

File: Capture.png (79KB, 675x691px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 675x691px

>>78196677
the first comment of that article is very spot on

>>78200763
^This.

Honestly Trump should be pressuring Xi to clean up this mess. It's China's goddamn problem not ours

>>78201062
well Cletus, it's very difficult to tell if America doesn't want war. if America didn't want war or didn't threaten NK with war drills on their doorstep maybe this situation can be resolved peacefully.

>>78201126
IDK, China has been adamant for the last 20 years that North Korea is our problem and not theirs.

>>78196075
[Citations needed]

>>78201126
if you think this is China's problem then let China deal with it. America cannot expect China to help with the situation if America just wants China to rubberstamp an American made solution

>>78201178
>CCP shill not even trying to hide it at this point

Literally nothing worth keeping left in Seoul
Just shitty high rises

Evacuate the southern part of SK and just let shit roll even if it means NK will dresdenize the capital

>>78201268
right, shall i call you an American dog so all the tropes are played and we can actually have a conversation?

>>78201186
And they've been correct. We've been taking the lead on NK for 23 years now. We will have to again.

NK wouldn't be pursuing nukes if the USA wasn't right on their border threatening regime change. Doesn't mean we shouldn't threaten them of course, but it's definitely more OUR problem than China's.

>>78201412
>NK wouldn't be pursuing nukes if the USA wasn't right on their border threatening regime change
We aren't though, we're not going to attack them first.

>>78201345
>>78188126

Samefag

File: 1.png (231KB, 1651x803px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 1651x803px

>>78201682
nope, that's not me. make an argument shithead.

China will rape the USA 6 days a week and twice on Sunday in a war on the Korean peninsular. They forced a draw in Korea and won in Vietnam even when they had shitty mass produced commie guns nevermind with the relatively modern equipment they have today.
>But SK and Japan.
SK's army is inferior even to the NK army and their capital is right next to the border with half their population while Japan has a glorified self defence force that isn't suitable for holding ground. The entire war will be USA holding the ocean and a few cities on the southern tip of Korea while supplying those bases from Japan.

>>78201640
>we're not going to attack them first

Well we might with all of this ICBM development.
That's what makes them a bigger issue than these other countries like Pakistan who have gone nuclear.
They are striving to be more than a regional threat, and that threat grows by the day while our ability to counter it with minimal loses diminishes.

>>78201894
China has a lot of swinging dicks.
That's it.

>>78201894
And in the process, it would entirely destroy its service economy which entirely depends on our consumerism. This isn't 1950 or 1966. The nature of China has changed completely and they have become more interested in economics than ideology or territorial control. Your pretend war with China simply isn't going to happen. Even if they did, for some fucking reason, enter into a self-destructive war with the US and its allies, they'd entirely lose any Russian support which would, again, hamstring their economy and set another potential enemy on their doorstep.

China would stand to lose:
all international goodwill
their relationship with Russia
their massive export economy
their confidence in its relationship with bordering nations

And for what do you think they'll run this risk? For a tiny fucking buffer zone against the influence of South Korea? By backing the US or even just remaining completely neutral, they'd have everything to gain internationally.

>>78202003
because they know the damage inflicted affects everybody and nobody wants it. this will push towards a diplomatic solution that is acceptable.

if their gamble fails, that is an acceptable loss as well. China's government is suited for war on their territory, are western governments suited for war on foreign soil? like the first Korean war and Vietnam?

>>78202003
US and its allies don't know the exact capabilities of Chinese military, they could have amazing super weapons no one knows about. And ofc they held US to a draw in the 1950s when they had peasant army with old guns and no nukes.

>>78202174
>China's government is suited for war on their territory
No one is talking about invading Chinese territory though, even during 1950-53 we didn't scratch their soil.

>>78196288
You don't think Korea + America has a contingency for this?

Targetted attacks on artillery is the first thing in any war, and artillery is hard as fuck to hide in the age of satellite warfare.

>>78202194
China's military are inferior to the US, there is no doubt about that. Chinese weapons are focused on area denial while US forces are focused on power projection. US has a stronger military, but are more vulnerable to politically. it is a trade off.

>>78201894
>>78202194
why do so many LatAms wish for America to be fucked? every international politics/war thread has a post shitting on america by a latin flag.

are you guys still bitter about 50 years of CIA fucking you in the ass?

>>78202228
it's about Chinese interests. and as far as NK is concerned, it is their territory. the UN forces didn't even cross into the Yalu before the Chinese counter attack, it was already planned before hand in the first korean war.

>>78202290
It's just a couple of edgy commie university students.

>>78202346
>and as far as NK is concerned, it is their territory

Or, they'd like it to be anyway but the Norks are too nationalistic for that.

File: 690889089.jpg (19KB, 504x402px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 504x402px

Do any actual white people post under Canadian and Australian flags?

>>78202434
does anybody with an American flag ever think of things outside of their own nations perspective?

Chink diaspora are truly pathetic.

>live in Western cunt for 2-3 generations
>still relentlessly shill CCP propaganda
>they're not even coming to the defense of a nation per se, but a government and a corrupt, shitty dictatorship at that

>>78202003
>its confidence in its relationship with bordering nations
No Chinese bordering nation has any confidence in China. They detest Chinese expansionism.

>>78202691

nobody in here is praising the CPC. just giving a perspective on the North Korean situation. why the strawman? make an argument.

CCP too dumb to realize that Beijing is also within range of North Korea's nukes.

>>78202290
LatAms often believe that they'd be wotld powers if it wasn't for that pesky United States. Argentina is especially bad about this, as they had a shot in the past and completely fucked it up.

>>78204219
they don't carreeeeeeeeeeee because the US has made themselves to be their biggest target.

it doesn't matter if NK has enough nukes to level every city in China, they are all pointed towards USA. lol.

Dealing with North Korea will only getting worse the longer you wait. I think it's time to make an agreement with China and just take North Korea ASAP before they become able to paint the map red with nukes. South Korea may suffer for it, but it's better to do it now than later.

>>78204711
Ok, but as part of the deal China has to take back all of their diaspora in Canada and Australia.

>>78200996
>If war happened, they'll probably just occupy North Korea themselves rather than allow US troops north of the DMZ

In which case the Norks would set off all their booby traps and WMDs on the Chinese army. Not that I would feel bad for them or anything, in fact it would be karmic justice for Beijing having breast-fed this monster for decades.

Besides, an American life is worth more than a Chinese life.

>>78205292
I meant it unironically btw.

>>78205292
I don't think they want them back desu. In fact I've already hidden all Canadian flags ITT and so should you.

>>78205609
lyl

>>78200763
Just because we don't want NK to have nukes doesn't mean we would let you fuck around there and invade it.

Can they just have the war already. Get it over and done with.

Pretty smart strategy by China if you ask me...

It enforces the status quo by making it harder for the US to do a first strike. They know if NK strikes first they will not be able to prevent a counterstrike by the US anyway.

The last thing China wants is a massive refugee flow in case the NK regime collapses and/or US troops approaching the Manchuria border.

Basically they want the NK regime to continue as is. This does incentivize NK to continue weapon development but in a world with only hard choices they would rather see a nuclear NK than a disastrous war on their doorstep.

>>78208103
How many young Chinese would really want to fight and die for Kim Jong Un anyway? He's mocked on the Chinese Internet.

>>78196300
>The biggest concern is Chinese intervention on behalf of NK.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/china-cautions-n-korea-youre-on-your-own-if-you-start-fight-against-us

>Shillary will start WW3 reeeee
Remember this line before the elections?

Poltards have always been IQ89 though.

>>78208275
in a survey of countries willing to fight. no specifics. just 'willingness to fight for your country'

71% China
44% USA
42% South Korea

I question China's ability to fight a war anyway. The PLA is a typical junk-tier Third World army with poor quality equipment and training and huge corruption levels.

A protracted conflict would probably weaken the CCP's hold on power and I doubt they want that.

>>78209622
China is 2nd worst in human rights violations
China is 2nd-ish worst in pollution
Ect.

China is trying to keep itself safe for as long as possible. The Chinese communists are opportunistic which is why they have propped up the Norks since '91. If war goes down, it will spill over into Manchuria and cause massive chaos, civil war, and collapse of CCP. They're buying time but the clock will run out eventually.

>Who do you think gave NK their weaponized uranium?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/china-north-korea-nuclear-bomb-company-investigation-a7320266.html

>>78209767
I hope so and we end up killing two birds with one stone.

>>78209767
>http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/china-north-korea-nuclear-bomb-company-investigation-a7320266.html
you liar president god kim mined that uranium with his own hands

invasion of nk is bound to happen one day , one cant let it grow more stronger now when it has ICBM and nukes. the sooner the better

if china joins openly taiwan/tibet will see freedom, plus more democracy and porn in china also its fianancial gain will dump , USA want china to join so that it can be fucked up
chinese and NK toys dont hold up to USA might eagar to crush before something become stronger to crush

china WILL support its buffer state at least through proxy , but a full USA invasion cant be prevented plus china loves dicatatorship and trade dont want to loose it over a dictator might

korea will be fucked , koreans will soon taste democracy and internet