Help support TMP


"Here is how a preemptive strike on North Korea would..." Topic


15 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2006-present) Message Board


Action Log

18 Mar 2017 11:49 p.m. PST
by Editor in Chief Bill

  • Changed title from "Here is how a preemtive strike on North Korea would..." to "Here is how a preemptive strike on North Korea would..."


724 hits since 18 Mar 2017
©1994-2017 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP18 Mar 2017 10:20 p.m. PST

… go down.

link


Amicalement
Armand

Terrement Supporting Member of TMP19 Mar 2017 7:33 a.m. PST

Interesting read but oversimplification, and seems to be a great example of a "The ocean is wet" type piece.

GurKhan19 Mar 2017 9:20 a.m. PST

Possibly the biggest gap is any consideration of the Chinese reaction.

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP19 Mar 2017 3:14 p.m. PST

And the sky is blue… (smile)


Amicalement
Armand

Personal logo piper909 Supporting Member of TMP19 Mar 2017 3:30 p.m. PST

Reading this now -- I'm not only concerned about the military prospects, but the general fallout from the US launching it's own version of Pearl Harbor on another nation. With the added factor of So. Korea and Japan being caught, unasked, in the middle.

I can't think of a situation that would make NK MORE likely to launch a missile barrage than the fear it was going to be pre-emptively sneak attacked. I do not think there is wisdom in the current US policy.

USAFpilot20 Mar 2017 7:20 a.m. PST

For the record the US Secretary of State never said the US was contemplating a preemptive strike. He was asked a question by a reporter and answered everything is on the table. Everything, meaning all options, is always on the table. The only thing that has changed is the extreme nastiness of the press towards the current administration. I blame any warmongering on the press. Nothing like a war to drive up ratings on CNN which is no longer a legitimate news source.

soledad20 Mar 2017 7:25 a.m. PST

Wellsaid USAFpilot. All options is always an option.

Same with questions like "Can you rule out…"

The answer is of course "no" as an option can never be ruled out…

Bangorstu20 Mar 2017 2:50 p.m. PST

Seems a very optimistic view…

And I'm not sure an air force with close on 1000 aircrat, however old, can be described as 'small'….

BenFromBrooklyn21 Mar 2017 8:11 a.m. PST

South Korea and Japan would have to be on board with it from the beginning, and openly assisting, or it would be a disaster.

Lion in the Stars21 Mar 2017 10:54 a.m. PST

Pretty sure South Korea would be thrilled to finally get rid of their idiot neighbor.

The challenge would be getting Japan onboard, and a couple more missile tests flying over Japan should settle that discussion.

soledad21 Mar 2017 12:10 p.m. PST

When it comes to military hardware numbers is not a very important deciding factor. 1000 aircraft with poorly trained pilots is nothing but missile targets for modern aircraft with well trained pilots with good command and control.

Also it greatly depends on how many of those aircraft that are actually airworthy.

But I agree, 1000 aircraft on paper is not a small airforce but I doubt there are 1000 airworthy aircraft.

Rod I Robertson Supporting Member of TMP22 Mar 2017 3:22 a.m. PST

Attacking North Korea pre-emptively would bring China into the war and things would become very dangerous from that point onwards. Attacking North Korea by conventional means is impractical and would only inflame the region. If pressed too hard the North Koreans or more remotely the Chinese might resort to nuclear, chemical and biological warfare on the Korean Peninsula, banking on the faint hope that such an act might cause the US to pause or relent. If the US responded with its own nuclear strikes after its pre-emotive war on North Korea got out of control then the world would turn against it and it would become a piriah nation. The US has far more to lose than North Korea and marginally more to lose than China.

Best to avoid open military confrontation with North Korea and work to collapse the state from within.

Rod Robertson.

Andy ONeill22 Mar 2017 1:01 p.m. PST

If NK was going to collapse then it's taking it's time doing so.
I should think those American chaps will have already considered subtle destabilisation. Bit tricky doing so in a militaristic paranoid dictatorship – I'd take a wild guess and suggest this may be why no internal led collapse has happened.

The obvious approach is to get China to apply pressure.
Which is what is being done.

That could well fail.
Political pressure hasn't had much effect on NK.

The US can hope for the best but it needs to plan for the worst.
China seems to be increasingly unhappy with the belligerence of NK.
If things worsen and NK looks like it's realistically going to attack USA then China might conceivably support US in some sort of military action.

Noble71324 Mar 2017 11:30 a.m. PST

Having just participated in Key Resolve ( link )….this article is so ridiculously optimistic it might as well be classified as war porn or science fiction.

And here's a good RAND publication about potential for a North Korean collapse: ( link )

Bangorstu25 Mar 2017 4:30 a.m. PST

My thoughts exactly Noble. The threat from all that artillery on Seoul seems downplayed as well.

It will simply take a very long while to hit several thousand artillery pieces – given youve got to take out the AAA and air force as well.

Even if that takes less than a day, that's a hell of a lot of metal hitting downtown Seoul.

TBH the way to stop the NK army might be to simply put a lot of MREs in their way.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.