So is the US garrison in Worst Korea capable of holding back

>>35126926
SK by itself will be able to hold back NK. US is there to make it easier

>>35126946
It's retarded that we're still there. We don't have the wealth to be wasting it on welfare for this irrelevant peninsula that doesn't need us.

>>35126926
>>35126946
>>35126985
RoK Army and the US forces are just a speed bump. Something to soak artillery fire, return fire, and spread mines. So that the civilians can evacuate to the south and the US can get more forces to Korea for the counter assault into the North.

They might not have fuel, modern vehicles, guided munitions, etc. They do have a huge amount of artillery on the border and hundreds of thousands/millions of men with AKs. So any sort of assault by them would be initially devastating unless we were well prepared. Even then it would still be painful.

Though after that it would be a cake walk. As the North has spent it self and does not have the logistics to continue and sort of war.

Also remember that the US forces in Korea are not as large as they used to be before 9/11. They moved a lot of fighting power to the USA. The US bases in Korea now have dependents. where it used to be only service members and government workers. So we would also be tied up evacuating the women and children to Japan.

>>35127041
Anon what. US/Sork forces are on the most heavily defended border in the world with ridiculous technological superiority. The Norks have plenty of artillery, but it's sat in place for so long that towns have sprung up around batteries. The minute shells come over the DMZ, counterbattery fire is going to annihilate everything and air attacks will grind any assault to a halt.

>>35127094
what air attacks you have in mind? Any low-and-slow plane/heli will be a long awaited practice target for norks and their put-igla-everywhere and no, you do not carry enough countermeasures to deal with thousands of manpads.

Any drones stationed nearby? I doubt you have enough to spend them on AA fire you are doomed to receive the moment you cross the line - anything from numerous,old but reliable S-125 to modestly dangerous S-300 clones norks might have already (started making them locally this year afaik) - which sadly puts them on the on par with any other country in the world, making them not-so-shit anymore.

Any stealth aircraft you have there? Do you have enough of them to be efficient in their tasks or would they be overloaded with wrecking ace after ace against MiGs from the north swarming to the south at once?

What I am trying to do is not fanboy for norks. I am merely trying to paint a picture for you. If norks take the offensive, it will be massive and numbers are on thier side. And lately they have started to even work on the quality, not just quantity so despite being 50 years behind current most modern technology, they still have pretty formidable firepower.

And for those who want to start ranting about superiority of technology, well, as it turned out on more than one occassion (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq again), technology on its own can't win a war. It won't even fight a war, you need boots on the ground to win, plenty of those to be clear.

Lil rant - I honestly think that in order to avoid lenghty conflict, 'murica should man the fuck up, nuke any military instalation in the north even if it means having to eat a nuke or two on US mainland in retaliation. I know that is not how nuclear chess should be played but noone else on this world has balls to do so. Also, because noone else seems to be arguing with norks, everyone else is like meh, whatever, let them be...

>>35127236
>as it turned out on more than one occassion
>Iraq
Anon we absolutely slapped Iraq's shit twice thanks to technological superiority. The problem is a war of occupation and counterinsurgency, but fighting a conventional war with the Norks would be hilariously easy.

Seriously, look at the Desert Storm Air Campaign. Both tactical and strategic level SEAD would open up the campaign - attacks on local batteries with HARMs and Wild Weasels while command centers deeper behind the front are hit to prevent coordination of air defenses. Once air defenses are hurt bad enough, air assets can operate with impunity. And if it's enough of an issue, a brief strategic retreat is all the US/Sorks would need to do to get outside of the SAM umbrella enough for air assets to use standoff munitions.

Although it's not wise to just assume any dictatorship's air force is going to perform as poorly as Iraq's did in 1991, morale still very much is an issue. Even a force supposedly as brainwashed as the Norks isn't going to just suicidally throw planes at the enemy until they're entirely exhausted. Best case, you'd see a situation like the Ogaden War - the Norks trying to overwhelm air support by throwing as many aircraft out as possible until fighter opposition takes out enough aircraft to make overwhelming attacks no longer feasible.

The garrison is mostly for show on both sides. If Norks try to get through the dmz they will provide basic resistance, destroy all the tech, and retreat. There's a base in Japan that will deal with actual engagements while SK mobilizes, and then NK gets their shit pushed in by the unified fleets in the Pacific. If they use nukes they're getting melted by a sub and absolutely nobody including China will condemn us for a retaliatory strike. There is no reason for us to engage in a conventional war against a bunch of malnourished asians using cold war tech.

>>35127364
point is, in the long game, neither Iraq can be described as a victory. USandA is very good at starting "wars" (not real official, declared wars desu), yet incredibly bad at winning them - perhaps because there are no winners in the war, only survivors who have less losses - but futility of war is for another discussion and perhaps another board altogether. You won the airbattle, nice, but mainly because the other party didn't even show up to the fight (second iraq, did anything actually take off?). That alone didn't win you a war, just made fighting easier in the initial phase. Won't be enough to call it a day though. I highly doubt there is any country in the world with higher AA-per-capita than best Korea. And god knows what S-300 clone they are producting and to what quality.

Also, sandniggers were not lifelong indoctrinated to hate you or get shot in the back from politic commisaars if they don't hate you enough. Something is telling me that norks would indeed start throwing everything but the kitchen sink with wings at you. And my point is that neither Koreans nor US forces stationed there currently are numerous enough to deal with it efficiently, even if they miraculously had zero losses thanks to superior technology. My best bet would be fall back to put enemy forces out of their comfortable reach (AA umbrella, stationary arty fire) and then deal with everything that dares to get any further to the south of this imaginary holding line. Sadly, by that point millions might be dead already.

>>35127482
US didn't start Gulf War 1.

File: cpgw_150.gif (289KB, 513x700px) Image search: [Google]

289KB, 513x700px

>>35127482
what the fuck are you getting at? The whole point of this thread is the possibility of a Nork attack. There's nothing about occupation, and, surprise - the guerillas you keep bringing up aren't something you use to fight an offensive war against a first-world power.

And you're vastly overestimating Nork morale. Their fanaticism comes largely from isolation. Once exposed to the realities of just how outmatched they are, morale's going to plummet. And it doesn't matter how many commissars you have or what the punishment is for failing if your logistics are so fucked you can't even feed the soldiers, let alone fight a war.

The Gulf War is an excellent example, though I don't have the right graphs on hand, pic related gives at least an idea of how devastating it can be to morale. But with Desert Storm, the air campaign managed to reduce the supply lines to prevent adequate supplies for a offensives within a couple of days, defensive warfare within a week, and, by the time the ground war started, they weren't even receiving enough supplies to feed the men in Kuwait.

>>35127578
So how do you imagine the scenario then? Like, prepare for nork attack, fight them as they cross to the south of DMZ, wait till they run out of supplies and fall back, then call it a day and declare a victory? You think there wouldn't be a really massive counterattack from the South to the North, to push them back and prevent them from ever regaining strenght to think of doing it again? Or you think a successful defense would be just enough to end it?

As soon as you step into NK, you will have to launch a long term liberation (*occupation) campaign. While it would be easier to win this one than any previous (it would be also liberation campaign which has merits of its own), you would STILL need to march into there with your own troops. So think further than just the initial gunshots exchange, there will have to be a counteroffensive of some sort and extent. Morale or not, you would have to consider every nork to be at least suspect - you never know which individual is fanatized enough to bring a nade without pin to control checkpoint afterwards, same as you can't tell hajis apart from civies in the middle east.

Also, like I pointed out earlier, AA defense situation in the NK is way, way different than in case of Iraq, also, keep in mind, if we are talking about scenario of North attacking first, your air campaign would be just a reaction to it. You would lose advantage of the first strike and thus initiative, or properly planned and executed air strike to immobilize any AA capacity of the enemy. You would have to make-do according to pre-prepared contingency plans you have and rely on technological advantage. You wouldn't have a liberty of launching anything (tomahawks, B-2s) to deal the initial blow, war would be already on and you would be maximizing the effect asap. Just saying, airspace of NK is not an open dancefloor and I wouldn't envy any pilot flying there in the first week or so, until air defence is sufficiently exhausted and decimated.

>>35126926
They're tripwires. They're the bloody shirt that will be waved to justify glassing the norks once and for all.

>>35127718
It would involve fucking up everything within reach using local resources (counterbattery fire, air attacks, etc.) and using minor defense in depth until the Nork attack (rapidly) loses steam and stalls. At that point, if the Norks don't collapse already - which itself is a major possibility - then it's just 1991 all over again. Stabilize the front and wait until sufficient forces are assembled in the region to so thoroughly slap the Norks' shit that the country will just fall apart the minute a ground war starts.

You're somewhat right about how problematic the Norks will be post-occupation, but you're looking at it the wrong way. The problem of North Korea isn't one of insurgency, it's one of rehabilitation. You're looking at quite possibly the largest refugee crisis in history and a financial catastrophe as South Korea struggles to cope with the strain of bringing North Korea up to modern standards. Remember how bad the reuinification of Germany was? Imagine that on steroids.

As for the actual danger of insurgency, it's hard to really tell how bad that would be. Of course the Norks try to make it seem like the people are indoctrinated enough to fight to the last man, but more realistically, the Nork state will probably implode once it becomes clear to the upper leadership that they've got in over their heads. Some kind of coup would probably happen, because there's likely going to be some elite faction that's going to think they can salvage something out of this for themselves, and with that, the carefully created cult of the state will fall apart.

And that brings us to the real problem with this scenario - it'd never happen. Nobody wants war, not because of the death, but because it serves nobody. The South doesn't want the North, and it's in the interests of the ruling elites in the North to keep the state a pariah to stay in power and allow them to leverage the occasional concession out of the US whenever they want something.

File: F-14A_Tomcats_VF-84_in_flight_during_1991_Gulf_War.jpg (262KB, 754x504px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 754x504px

>>35127041
>>35127094

>muh artillery

Without air cover, static artillery is pretty much just a sitting target.

t. Gulf War

Once US imperial forces cross into North Korea they will be pushed out into the sea.

>>35127858

Finally something I agree with, mostly. Now, I will let you put some nukes into the mix - something USA never dared to poke and never had to face outside of short Cuban crisis. Cold war and the entire nuclear chess, missile gap thing? How shite was that - even though both sides were reasonable enough to realise that the only outcome is going to be a MAD, so in the end they decided to give it up and deescalate the situation as soon as they realised it is starting to get out of control.

Meanwhile, on Korean peninsula, situation is escalating quickly, being called the worst ever has been, Norks being desperate, having not much to lose so they won't hesitate to go all in (conventional and nuclear), giving zero fucks should they deem their sovereign anti-hero regime nearing the end due to liquidating sanctions or inevitable attack from outside or inside. It takes just one madman to start it all.


In this fucked up situation, the most peaceful solution is to let Kims rule forever, let them be antiheroes if they need it, let them have nukes and give them zero reasons to use them first. Sadly, some cuck in the whitehouse didn't get this memo and refuses to play his good-cop role accordingly, poking the hornets nest with a stick instead, wondering what could happen...

>>35127951
You're misreading it. The reason for the Nork nuclear program - and this is from the Norks themselves - is that they saw what happened to Ghaddafi and Saddam after they gave up their nuclear programs. In the eyes of North Korea, nuclear weapons are the only real way they can ensure the US will never invade them or try to topple the government. They don't want war, because they know very well that they will lose. Their aim is to deter war and stay in power.

Realistically, the best solution for North Korea is a very long-term process. You'd slowly work on cooling tensions and relaxing sanctions while you let the Nork economy modernize. It's tough, because (in terms of US foreign policy), you need to find a way to convince the North Korean elites that relaxing a state that's designed to do nothing but serve their interests is somehow actually good for them.

>>35127951
>just give them everything and things will be fine because once this 'peace' happens everything will be fine forever and they will never try to push more
Wow, an actual idiot.

>>35128036
Problem is their "marketing" of the nuclear arsenal (bombs, delivery platforms). They are not selling it as "Don't you dare, else...", instead, they are more like "We are ready to fuck you up if you do your move, so don't!" which sadly resonates badly (despite being same words in the end) with some aforementioned balding idiot in the white house who is getting offended by it and getting eager to masturbate his ego. Afterwall, he ain't gonna be the first president in a long time to wage no war, hell no, Make murica great again - and murica has been great only in wartimes (because industry was blooming, innovations too and luckily wars were not on home turf so like yeah, win-win).

>>35128089
wow an actual idiot who believes that norks have number one priority to push should they be comfy and cozy at home. It is foreign sanctions and politics (washington mainly) who is making them unsure about building their own bright isolated communistic future, thus making this entire hypothetical scenario of norks attack possible. China is like whatever man, let them be and things will be a'right again.

In the last 50 years noone needed to poke North with strong words of "military actions" and shit, despite them developing nukes in the last decade - at most, UN was like saying "Nah-nah, bad boy", that was it, everyone liked the status quo and wow jeebus, north has not attacked yet. So much for believing they wouldn't do that.

However, lately, some orange asshole has changed rethorics, escalating the situation a lot. Neither bulldog wants to lose the face so the game is up. That is the problem. Status quo has never been a problem.

>>35128159
Neck yourself faggot. The norks have been threatening everyone in the region with nuclear attacks, they are a blight on the world that needs to be ended, and so are you.

>>35128248
aaaaaand here come the trumpcucks. Gotta love how they don't say a thing until someone insults their precious god-emperor.

>>35126926
The North Korean army doesn't even have enough gasoline to fuel all their vehicles. I'd be surprised if their forces could even reach the DMZ much less push past it.

>>35128159
In the last 50 years no one did and they got nukes, at this point the only tho g left is for then to nuke someone for your response to be
>oh well who is REALLY at fault here, the norks or the imperial americans?

>>35128159
Ehh I'd argue Trump isn't all that dangerous with this situation. He definitely (hopefully) seems to ascribe to madman theory when it comes to foreign policy, and, despite how damaging his foreign policy seems to be for our long-term interests, his posturing did seem to do a good job at causing the region to panick and eventually get the Norks to back down. However, whether or not that was intentional or just luck is a different question. Another concern is that the posturing seemed to get China to put the decisive pressure to defuse the situation, which was nice in the short term, but it may be conceding regional influence to China.

And on a more cynical note, given how concerned he seems to be with making sure his decisions directly serve his financial interests as much as possible, I'd doubt he'd really push for war due to the threat of economic catastrophe in at the very least South Korea and likely Japan as well.

>>35128291
I don't like the guy but he has been right to hard ball the North Koreans, plying words mean nothing to them but weakness. Funny how you think that's a partisan issue.

>>35128248
best arguments ever :DDD Git real kiddo and cut down on that shark testosterone.

Drump has been threatening with the same shit to them and look, so far nothing has happened. Words of politicians don't imply actions and unless provoked, I am 100% sure Norks wouldn't suddenly change their policy and start suicidal attack, unless forced to. They had enless opportunity so far - now, with nukes in their hands, they are only increasing the risk of getting nuked in return. Kims could have done that shit long time if they were for real with that and it wasn't just a bluff to paint everyone else as bad guy, to keep their peasants in order and under control.

So don't fucking force them and they will stay at home like they have been doing ever since the DMZ has been drawn on the map. Like the other poster said, war is not going to favor anyone and cooling tensions and relaxing sanctions is the best peaceful way to go about it. Or glass them before they make a move and eat a nuke or two in retaliation, deal with impeding post-war humanitarian crisis on Korean peninsula, aftermath of yet another use of nuclear weapons by USA in Asian region... another war. For nothing in return, really. Your choice.

>>35128353
>nukes aren't real man
>just close your eyes, man
>just walk away lol
What the fuck are you even saying?

>>35128349
He doesn't have an option at this point short of war, China was practically in control of North Korea until a little while ago anyway.

Long term interest would have been preventing nukes in the first place but that ship has sailed since maybe as early as Bush 2

>>35128352
Ah my bad that just sounded like the kind of overly-defensive rage I normally see after someone implies Trump may have done something wrong.

But unfortunately it's more complicated than that. The problem with posturing on our part is that it extends the unfavorable situation in Korea by "proving" to the North Koreans that we're going to do everything we can to topple the government. And by doing that, it only reinforces their idea that they need nukes. Granted, they're really bad at "properly" using a deterrent, but at the same time, brinksmanship seems to be the best way for them to do things.

It's unfortunate, because the only way to "fix" North Korea without a costly war is by defusing the rhretoric and convincing them that they're no longer under threat, but at the same time, we need to get them to understand that brinksmanship like this isn't acceptable. Like I said before, the nukes came about because of what happened in Iraq and Libya, and the only way to get them to get rid of them is by eliminating the existential threat they feel.

Really I'd say it's too early to make a call as to whether or not Trump's handling this well. The crisis a couple weeks ago seemed defused by him (hopefully) playing Madman Theory, but now the Norks are back and it's unclear if he'll continue to defuse things as well.

>>35128383
As long as they are not being launched anywhere, they are just a tool to support retorics of politics. When they get armed, shit is for real. So nukes are not a danger on their own, their users are dangerous. Learn the difference. Also, if they didn't push nukes, would any biological or chemical weapon instead make you more comfy? It is about madmen, not their toys.


Korea is shite place but if it wasn't on CNN, 99% of Mericans wouldn't even know that there are two Koreas - hell, I still doubt half of them can show it on the blank map :D But suddenly, it is sweeping the nation so hey, let's solve it like we solved any other foreign problem that did not involve us at all, let's bomb the shit out them, woohoo, merica!


At this very point I would like to point out that in the entire history of mankind there has been just and only one country who used nuclear weapons against other country. Twice, to be exact. And I will give you a hint, no, it has not been any dictorship led by fat mad kid. People say history does repeat itself tho...

>>35128426
There's plenty of options short of war, just nothing that'll defuse it as fast as that. China's been putting plenty of pressure on the Norks very recently, and all this ballistic missile testing gives us an excellent excuse to start putting up ABM systems all over the region - something China and Russia very much don't want.

There's still lots of places we can go with sanctions (like targeting entities that do business with North Korea), and there's still pressure we can put on China to cut North Korea's economic lifeline to force them to play ball.

>>35126926
The next Korean war is going to be fought against dug in norks. They've been digging in since the '50s. Imagine Iwo Jima or Vietnam times a million.

>>35128442
Problem is that this time it is two idiots having a nuke-off that goes like this: "My dick is bigger, I nuke you!" & "No, my orange dick is bigger, I nuke YOU!". Sadly, neither of idiots is as good at politics as their predecessors who managed to keep their cool, so this time regardless of what game they are playing, they are playing it wrong. Clash of idiots instead of titans. Unless they offload it to third party that wants to calm them down (China), they will end up punching each other left and right - and SouthKorea will take those punches. Not good.

>>35128528
You're falling for the posturing. Neither of them are nearly as stupid as they come off - especially Trump, and I say this as someone who vehemently hates the man.

>>35128552
Not me falling for it, but his voters. People who don't realise it and take his words like if it was a bible and then recite it everywhere - just look at some rednecks in this thread. Even if it is just a politics and you can't take them literally, it is sending a message, setting a trend and because it takes two to tango, Kim and his gang are doing the same. Then foreign media pick up on it, spread the mass hysteria and tadaaa, a missile test with no tangible results that would tell us anything about accuracy, throwweight, active countermeasures or anything that actually matters for a delivery platform... suddenly that missile test that is on par with a glorified V-2 rocket technology is the reason to get mad and start panicking.

And then it makes it hard in the eyes of public to just back off and let everything cool down, let it be. You would lose face in the eyes of the public and perhaps lose voters too. (in NK, that is not an issue, who you gonna vote anyway lol)

>>35128512
>iwo jima or vietnam times a million
no you retard it will be like the korean war tiems a million.

stupid idiots dont know what they're talking about on our k-pop board.

>>35128614
Anon calm your tits you're not some enlightened mastermind in a sea of idiots like you seem to think you are. Posturing and showmanship is a thing, and people recognize that - even his supporters.

>>35128639
Those people voted for him only because of his posturing and showmanship.

People who realised it is just empty words and fake promises didn't vote for him in the first place :)

Or are you trying to tell me there was any real reasonable reason to vote for the orange guy? I mean, other than not-voting for Hillary...

>>35127921
we have to strike first. otherwise it the Norks that will get off hundreds of thousands of rounds of artillery fire before counter battery fire silences them.

>>35128639
People are too stupid

>>35128675
Again, calm your tits. Are you really so sheltered that you've never encountered an actual Trump voter? As much as I hate the man, there are plenty of good, intelligent people who voted for Trump. I disagree with those people, but writing off everyone who voted for him as stupid makes you just as bad as you claim they are.

>>35128726
I reserve a little right for dramatization, you know, we are in hypothetical thread anyway, I wouldn't say that every single one of his voters is like that but man, people are fed by media and other influencers - all the people, in every country. People are easy to manipulate so whatever opinion they will be fed, they will shit it out of their mouths. Well proven by reichsmarshall Goering that indoctrination can change the mind of the influential majority thus giving you a legality for your intentions.

>muh artillery
Seems like a moot point if the target has had well over 50 years to prepare a defense, and a battle plan.

>>35127236
>low and slow
What the fuck, who flies low and slow when you have precision munitions and enough aircraft to block out the sun?

>>35126926
So, for whoever was defending the North Korean Army, how do you expect a nation that can't properly feed its own soldiers in PEACE TIME, win a protracted war? Once war starts all the humanitarian aid they're getting from the US and Europe ends. They sure as hell won't be able to up their food production while at war, so it wouldn't be much more than waiting for them starve to death, which they're actually doing a great job of right now on their own right now.

>>35126926Since we're already committed in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria, I doubt we can muster any sizable package for Korea. Maybe a few light brigades, but a heavy force would be damned difficult. And a heavy force is what's needed. I'm sure the 25th Infantry would be sent there first as was always the plan. The 2nd Infantry Division only has one armored brigade in country along with two MLRS battalions. The division’s two Stryker brigades are stationed at Fort Lewis. So just getting the 2nd to fighting strength requires the deployment of these two brigades across the Pacific along with their Strykers. A ground war in Korea would be a war among Koreans. The ROK Army has over 600,000 active duty troops, around 5,000 tanks and AFVs and close to 8,000 pieces of towed artillery, self-propelled artillery and MLRS. Our troops would never amount to more than a drop in the bucket.

>>35128812
>who flies low and slow


Not every target can be engaged by those. Sometimes you want to more appropriate or flexible means of influence from above (CAS, medivac, air cavalery) when you pretty much have to expose yourself to nigh-undetectable thread of igla spam... and no, you can not wild-weasel them, no, you can not destroy them as easily as SAM sites, no, they can not be locked on by stealth planes and their AESA radars... all you can do is NOT go low and slow. But eventually you will have to.

>>35128873
How many of those ROK soldiers get 3 meals a day? Wouldn't be very effective infantry when they're all suffering from malnutrition. I mean, they literally pay their soldiers in meth when they're low on food to keep their hunger manageable.

>>35128844
There has been an outright famine in the 90s and yet they are marching on. Hell, they even managed to make one of Kims properly fat :D

>>35128891
Only people in NK who are not totally malnutritioned are military personel. That is one of the best reasons to join that military in the first place (other is you don't want to be a farmer or meth cook). Unless south would employ burned earth tactics, anything, even a bag of chips in the bombed out supermarket is spoils of war worth going for.

>>35128891
Being fair Asians fed on nationalism can do some batshit feats on an empty stomach.
Look at WWII era Japan. Weren't the Japs in Iwo Jima called Martians because they were skin, bone and mud from all tunneling and no eating?

>>35128932
>>35128891
Found the quote
>The men we saw weighed no more than thirty kilos and did not look human. Nonetheless, these emaciated soldiers who looked like they came from Mars faced the enemy with a force that could not be believed. I sensed a high morale.

>>35128891
ROK is the worst korea anon...

File: Remove Dwarf.jpg (891KB, 1534x1024px) Image search: [Google]

891KB, 1534x1024px

>>35128891
You're thinking of the DPRK. The ROK are a different story.

>>35128923
>>35128932
>>35128959
This guy was a North Korean defector and he says that the average solder was starving.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/defector-north-korean-troops-starving/

So when the world stops giving humanitarian aid to North Korea and they lose their Billions of dollars worth of food, they're going to be screwed. Farmers are already surviving on tree bark and grass clippings.

>>35128964
>>35128993
>>35128891
My bad, I meant to Say DPRK not ROK. Got my Korean Republic acronyms swapped.

>>35126985
>We don't have the wealth to be wasting it on welfare for this irrelevant peninsula that doesn't need us.
Please take off your MAGA hat and sit down, adults are talking.

First of all, we have plenty of fucking money to spend on stationing troops on the Korean Peninsula, so calm down.
We breathing again? Good, so now look at a map of the Korean Peninsula. Okay, now zoom out a little. See those two fuckhuge countries to the north and east? They're called Russia and China. We hate them, and they hate us. The thing is, they're really far away from us, and it's hard to keep an eye on them from the West Coast of the United States, or even most of our Pacific territories.
But what's this? Oh, there's this cool little country right between them that we fought a war over a while back? And they're willing to let us set up pretty much any survailence equipment we want on their land as long as a technical state of war exists with their northern neighbor? Well shit, doesn't that sound nifty; we get to play guardian to this little bruiser of a nation while also keeping our eyes on China and parts of Russia. How fucking cool is that.

>>35128800
its true, if the media wasn't so friendly with Trump, he would never have gotten elected!

>>35129070
>Please take off your MAGA hat
will you fucking stop, jesus h christ, you are partisan as shit.

>>35129091
Oh, I'm sorry. Here, lets try this:

Please stop your incessant bitching and sit down, adults are talking.

First of all, we have plenty of fucking money to spend on stationing troops on the Korean Peninsula, so calm down.
We breathing again? Good, so now look at a map of the Korean Peninsula. Okay, now zoom out a little. See those two fuckhuge countries to the north and east? They're called Russia and China. We hate them, and they hate us. The thing is, they're really far away from us, and it's hard to keep an eye on them from the West Coast of the United States, or even most of our Pacific territories.
But what's this? Oh, there's this cool little country right between them that we fought a war over a while back? And they're willing to let us set up pretty much any surveillance equipment we want on their land as long as a technical state of war exists with their northern neighbor? Well shit, doesn't that sound nifty; we get to play guardian to this little bruiser of a nation while also keeping our eyes on China and parts of Russia. How fucking cool is that.

>>35129109
I would like to clarify that thanks to surveillance satelites that spy role is minimal. It is more about being able to use their military facilities to some extent (airfields and naval bases), being good bros and generally being present there. Also, ABM shield that is meant to intercept at launch or midcourse needs to be in those places and boy, aren't those Norks giving us a nice excuse to place it just there while being totally cool that it surely ain't gonna be deployed against other countries, just those pesky norks...

>>35129070
While you are totally correct, you still sound like a bitch

>>35129204
this is a motherfuckin 4chan, did you expect anything else? If yes, gtfo to reddit

>>35126926
Every anon that says we wouldnt annihilate the North was a mistake.

We have 8 ranger battalions on station ready to go on the Pacific seaboard and in Korea, not to mention the ones stationed in Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, and Japan. Plus the DOZENS of strike groupls floating of each reapective coast, and the CSG's stationed in the pacific somewhere. We also have marine bases in thailand, the west coast, SK, and Japan. Plus China has pledged to invade from the north if Best Korea strikes first. thats ALOT of guys flooding in on their northern boarder. Not to mention the British, SK, French, German, and Jap nations sending in releif troops. Thats WELL over a million men eith better tech, better training, better loving conditions, and better spirits.

NOT to menyion the airforce of each respective country listed. Thats AT LEAST 3 manpads to 1 plane. Since an F15SE can attack 4-5 simultaneous targets, i think airspace would be dominated within the first hour of fighting. That leaves the norks outnumbered, out gunned, and nowhere to hide but underground.

Now, the Chinease know all about tunnel fighting. So do SK, Thailand, and Japan. That leaves nowhere to run, and gurenteed that an MRE or 2 a day will produce a bigger turn of events than Desert Storm.

Goodbye Best Korea.

Question. If the US knew where North Korean warheads are stored, could they just cruise missile bomb it? I mean, would bombing a nuke depot cause the nukes to explode?

>>35129225
no u

>>35128159
Hey Neville Chamberlain

>>35129234
Not in a nuclear way. Primary explosives would go off and it would shatter radioactive material all over the place, but it would not go critical. Most weapon designs require very perfectly timed detonation sequence to make explosive lenses work. Not mentioning other things like that there should be some mechanical failsafe and you should not store that very important initiator within. But who knows, maybe nork bombs are held together by ducktape...

The only design which could potentionally go critical when mishandled is a simple gun-type warhead with two parts that together attain criticallity on their own. In such crude and inefficient design just putting them together could make things go off (think demon core, except more exothermic)

Problem is, finding them. If they are on mobile launchers then they are supposed to be mobile . The moment any nork radar detects cruise missile (or first one goes boom), they should start the engines and gtfo, or pray that their tunnels are deep and strong enough to not give a fuck.

>>35126985

You don't know what you're talking about.

>>35129326
touche

in my defence, I believe to be sensible enough to not be a proponent of war. I might be okay with quick and fairly painless solution (glass em) but not in a favour of war where you send your guys to kill their guys and instead get killed when things goes apeshit (which in war, inevitably, always will)... War does not bring prosperity, only deathtolls. Let's do it the most efficient way, if we have to.

>>35129356
I know shit all about these things but I imagine US intelligence must work on tracking them trucks 24/7 with satellites and other means.

>>35129411
Satellites are not your best choice, they tend to fly low thus fast, definitelly not covering every valley of the peninsula... Very good if you want to look somewhere, not so good when you are looking for something everywhere. Even if you were lucky and managed to identify all launchers/launch sites with a mix of drones, satellites and other recon, it takes just one you miss to go test your ABM systems or get glassed. That is the point of mobile launchers, not to mention, if you have warhead small enough for ballistic missile, it is small enough to fit into plane as well - giving you more targets to think about. So suddenly, your first preemptive strike on possible nuclear targets is like a good half of military installations in the north...

That is of course unless you have good intelligence sources that can tell you exactly how many warheads have been made and where they are stationed by default. Not sure whether we are talking about few warheads or dozens, that changes the game. The fewer, the easier to find them all. Part of me wants to believe that CIA is doing their job. Part of me is scared they are doing their job and yet they are letting it go this far.

>>35129227
China won't do shit.

File: chadking.png (348KB, 470x523px) Image search: [Google]

348KB, 470x523px

https://nautilus.org/napsnet/napsnet-special-reports/mind-the-gap-between-rhetoric-and-reality/

Necessary reading for anyone who buys into the 'North Korea will just level everything and everyone in Seoul immediately' narrative. You really only have to worry about nuclear weapons being used by North Korea, and even then those are far far far more likely to be defensive safeguards to ensure continuity of the North Government instead of an offensive weapon.

>>35127482
>USandA is very good at starting "wars" (not real official, declared wars desu),
The US didn't start the first Gulf War. Also, most wars haven't been declared after 1945.

>perhaps because there are no winners in the war, only survivors who have less losses
Gulf War shows otherwise.

>S-300 clone they are producting and to what quality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KN-06

>Something is telling me that norks would indeed start throwing everything but the kitchen sink with wings at you.
That sucks, as a kitchen sink might be more effective than what they have now.
>And my point is that neither Koreans nor US forces stationed there currently are numerous enough to deal with it efficiently, even if they miraculously had zero losses thanks to superior technology
Thats what forces in Japan, Australia and forward positions are for.

>>35127482
You're vastly, vastly overestimating how many more men North Korea has in comparison to South Korea anon. This isn't the Chinese pouring a billion actually supplied fighting men over the border, it's an anemic self-eating snake that exists to control the people through service and ensure the survival of state through making any attempt to oust the ruling party too bloody.

The Norks are idiots. I don't understand their thinking they know damn well they'll lose a stand up fight against the SK and American forces. They should focus on building a high quality military and start a covert super weapons program. Just possessing nuclear weapons isn't sufficient enough of a deterrent.

>>35127482
Given that North Korea has half the population of South Korea, what makes you think they will swarm South Korea which has universal conscription and reservist system until 40 years old?

>>35129384
I'm in agreement, the southern Koreans need to be the ones doing all the ground fighting. the minute a gweilo is seen on Nork soil it is going to be VLA mode.

>>35129782
Yep.. I'm betting they'd pull a Belka if they got invaded

>>35129978
>Just possessing nuclear weapons isn't sufficient enough of a deterrent.
They already have a functional deterrent. If they didn't they would not have survived shooting down a US spy aircraft in 1969, or sinking a South Korean destroyer, or starting their nuclear weapons program in the first place, or shelling random islands, or kidnapping and enslaving random Japanese civilians, and on and on and on for the past 60-some years. Every president called upon to take military action against North Korea since Eisenhower has refused regardless of how mustache-twirling villain tier the latest Kim shenanigan was. Every single one has blinked. The nuclear program is for decoupling military alliances with South Korea and isolating them.

>>35129227
>We have 8 ranger battalions on station ready to go on the Pacific seaboard and in Korea, not to mention the ones stationed in Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, and Japan.
?
>We also have marine bases in thailand
pulling in for liberty doesn't mean a base.

>Plus China has pledged to invade from the north if Best Korea strikes first.
no

>Not to mention the British, SK, French, German, and Jap nations sending in releif troops. Thats WELL over a million men eith better tech, better training, better loving conditions, and better spirits.
Learn to spell.

File: 4-2016-12-11-01-09.jpg (120KB, 560x400px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 560x400px

>>35127041
You're forgetting that the Sorks of 2017 are not the Sorks of 1949. They're well equipped with modern gear, technology and fighting doctrines. Facing them is... this. Unless they're just pretending to be retarded, that's the Nork equivalent of special forces and they're just standing in the open hosing down the house without aiming down the sights. I'm certain that the "devastating Nork artillery" that people talk about being aimed at Seoul has been pre-sighted for decades for counterbatteries and air strikes.

>>35128675
the main reason to vote trump was a vote against hillary.
for the only candidate who could have beat her at the time.
lesser of two evils is all it was

>>35128675
I voted for him because he wasn't going to take my guns. Hillary was.

>>35126985
Americans are stationed purely for the benefit of the US, you drooling idiot.

>>35128844
you mean *right now?
as in *right now*?

>>35130374
Lesser of two evils? It was either the Supreme Court being fucked for over a generation or one that would be favorable to us. A vote for Trump was the only option.

>>35130424
Gorsuch alone makes Trump worth it

>>35126926
The nukes are what keep them at bay the nk army is still cucking it up with 1980s tanks and equipment while sk has modern day equipment and tanks , I'm to lazy but I think they have the black panther which is basically an Abrahams painted black

>>35129070
>See those two fuckhuge countries to the north and east? They're called Russia and China.
>fuckhuge countries to the north and east?
>east
China is West. Japan is East, but it is neither fuckhuge nor is it China.

File: K2_black_panther3.jpg (373KB, 1920x1243px) Image search: [Google]

373KB, 1920x1243px

>>35130478
The K-2 is arguably the most advanced Main Battle tank in the world; and at the very least in the crowd of them.

>>35130558
Eh at the end of the day who ever fires first will tell how the battle ends in terms of modern tanks anyway or the leapord 2

>>35127041
>They might not have fuel, modern vehicles, guided munitions, etc. They do have a huge amount of artillery on the border and hundreds of thousands/millions of men with AKs. So any sort of assault by them would be initially devastating unless we were well prepared. Even then it would still be painful.
Except that there are what, three major roads into South Korea and a few smaller corridors? The rest is hills and shit? North Korea has no logistical capabilities, no fuel. They have to come through any of those corridors and they'll just get slaughtered there. Intel on who comes down, when and with what should be more than good. Any artillery they have, if it isn't already centered on approach channels just in case, would have to readjust. Ignoring the fact that their artillery is one of the first targets to begin with for a second, they would simply get destroyed very quickly considering the lack of ability of North Korea to defend themselves from air attacks. North Korea basically has ZERO possibility of moving into South Korea without getting absolutely blow apart. Which is another part though, isn't it? Artillery is used to soften up targets but that infantry that is supposed to move into said target area will never make it there in the case of North Korea.

>>35130136

But if you want to destroy America it's not sufficient. I'd be looking into weaponizing nanites, or bio weapons targeting the American food supply. Something that has build in deniability something impossible to trace back to North Korea.

>>35128159
You aren't American or an Anglo are you? Your english is good but a bit off.

I'd guess eastern Euro?