Help support TMP


"Is North Korea Going To Be President Trump's First War?" Topic


35 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



924 hits since 5 Apr 2017
©1994-2017 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango0105 Apr 2017 10:02 p.m. PST

"By now most people are completely desensitized to stories involving North Korea. One can only hear about so many blustering threats, missile launches, and state sanctioned executions, before those incidents are no longer surprising. Over the years we've seen it all, and most folks don't really pay much attention to what's going on in the Hermit Kingdom. That's unfortunate, because they're not paying attention as the Trump administration inches towards war with North Korea.

The first definite sign that the current administration was going to take a different approach to North Korea, was when Secretary of State Rex Tillerson stated emphatically last month that "all options are on the table."…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Personal logo piper909 Supporting Member of TMP05 Apr 2017 11:44 p.m. PST

If war comes, I hope it doesn't begin with an American sneak attack. Because we used to think ourselves above such a thing and regarded those who weren't as despicable. I suppose the next worst thing would be deliberately provoking an avoidable war, which may be the game the US is playing with the jittery and unpredictable North Korean leadership.

Sobieski06 Apr 2017 1:02 a.m. PST

Above such things…interesting view of some of what's happened in South America at times.

Noble713 Inactive Member06 Apr 2017 1:56 a.m. PST

If war comes, I hope it doesn't begin with an American sneak attack.

A greater likelihood is the South Korean military leadership says "Enough is enough!" the next time they suffer casualties such as ( link ) or ( link ). Rumor mill here was that US flag officers were the ones advocating de-escalation on at least one occasion (possibly the August 2015 shenanigans listed here: link ), when the ROK was ready to throw down the gauntlet.

Supercilius Maximus06 Apr 2017 3:28 a.m. PST

Isn't "sneak attack" called "pre-emptive strike" nowadays?

Personal logo 28mm Fanatik Supporting Member of TMP06 Apr 2017 4:00 a.m. PST

A war with N. Korea will not involve US boots on the ground a la' Operation Enduring Freedom. It will be a limited war aimed not at toppling Kim Jong Un or liberating the oppressed N. Korean people but to destroy N. Korea's nuclear and military infrastructure. Such a war is waged with missiles and aircraft.

Noble713 Inactive Member06 Apr 2017 5:12 a.m. PST

A war with N. Korea will not involve US boots on the ground a la' Operation Enduring Freedom.

I'm not gonna say that you're wrong, but….being *intimately* familiar with the Korean Theater of Operations, I wouldn't place too much hope on a bloodless (for the US) campaign. Hell, we've got boots all over Syria and Iraq and ISIS is nowhere near the scale or significance of Korea going hot again.

It will be a limited war aimed not at toppling Kim Jong Un or liberating the oppressed N. Korean people but to destroy N. Korea's nuclear and military infrastructure.

Remember how we bombarded Iwo Jima for days and then were surprised to find the Japanese had turned the whole island into an underground shelter? Yeah….that's pretty much the entire country of North Korea. Except they've been prepping for 60 years.

Trying to bomb enough NorK UGFs to matter would play into their domestic propaganda hands, giving them casus belli to launch a full-scale assault on the South "before the American imperialist air campaign paves the way for an invasion!!!" And they would have no choice but to attack, because the regime leadership isn't viable WITHOUT the military infrastructure as the primary backbone of state power.

Rod I Robertson Supporting Member of TMP Inactive Member06 Apr 2017 5:24 a.m. PST

28mm Fanatik et al.:

You're assuming N Korea will play a passive role if attacked by the US missiles and aircraft. It may not and it may escalate the conflict like a cornered animal attempting to drive off a much larger predator. If they don't play by US rules and escalate the conflict then US boots on the ground will likely be involved, especially if N Koreans attack S. Korea with missiles and artillery across the DMZ. Worse still, a deniable third-party chemical, biological or nuclear attack on S Korea, another Asian US ally or the USA itself might escalate the surgical war into a wider conflict drawing China into the hostilities. Russia might then take the opportunity to further entangle the USA in or outside the region to further weaken the US population's resolve to wage war. Limited but forceful Chinese or Russian military action could be designed to decapitate the US executive by triggering a domestic uprising or a deep-state coup in the USA.

I assume you are not endorsing such a flawed strategy by the USA but are rather just presenting a possible position that some in the US government might advance. Such war-hawks and the current US Commander in Chief should remember that history teaches powerful, cautionary lessons that waging an unnecessary war of choice, even by a superior power on a weaker target, is usually foolish and can set in motion events which cascade out of control. Times are changing and the US leadership must ultimately come to terms with the idea that Asia is now for Asians and is no longer within the US sphere of control. Influence yes, but no longer control.

Cheers and peace be upon you all.
Rod Robertson

bruntonboy06 Apr 2017 5:32 a.m. PST

If it is his first war, I suspect it will also be his last one.

USAFpilot06 Apr 2017 6:16 a.m. PST

The US should withdraw all its troops from Sourh Korea; they are more than capable of defending themselves. This is a regional issue. The US has nothing to gain by getting involved. Haven't we seen enough of failed globalist interventions?

WarWizard06 Apr 2017 6:51 a.m. PST

When nations did nothing against a dictator named Adolf Hitler, he happily conquered Poland. Looking the other way only impowers these lunatics. Stopping them is never easy, but not stopping them could be worse.

This short article give a VERY good analysis of their strategy, capability and intentions.
link

USAFpilot06 Apr 2017 8:19 a.m. PST

little Kim is not invading anyone. The South is more than capable; your Hitler analogy does not hold up. He likes to rattle his saber because he knows when he does that the food will flow in to get him to stop. We've trained him that way.

darthfozzywig Supporting Member of TMP06 Apr 2017 8:39 a.m. PST

Remember how we bombarded Iwo Jima for days and then were surprised to find the Japanese had turned the whole island into an underground shelter? Yeah….that's pretty much the entire country of North Korea. Except they've been prepping for 60 years.

Yup. And have ballistic missiles. I live in L.A., and I'm not too confident of our TBM defenses. If I lived in Japan, I'd be even less so.

If I lived in Seoul, well, good luck.

Noble713 Inactive Member06 Apr 2017 8:40 a.m. PST

When nations did nothing against a dictator named Adolf Hitler, he happily conquered Poland. Looking the other way only impowers these lunatics.

Except the strategic goals of the North Korean regime are basically deterrence of invasion and regime sustainment, as they have long since passed the point of being able to win a conventional offensive war with the ROK. If their nuclear ambitions were meant to facilitate conquering the South, their delivery platform R&D wouldn't be so focused on long-range missiles. Your own link says as much:

The regime in Pyongyang wants the world to believe it's crazy enough to fire off a nuke … so that it doesn't actually have to do so.
"I do not think North Korea needs to be able to execute such a plan to achieve most of the available deterrence," Lewis explained. With just a handful of relatively low-tech warheads and a lot of apocalyptic moxie, North Korea can keep the rest of the world at bay.
(emphasis mine)….Hitler's objectives were NEVER deterrence.

darthfozzywig Supporting Member of TMP06 Apr 2017 8:41 a.m. PST

drawing China into the hostilities

Pfft. That could never happen.
Except that it did.
And we killed a few hundred thousand Chinese.

What's weird is how few Americans realize we've been at war with China. I'm quite confident the Chinese haven't forgotten.

darthfozzywig Supporting Member of TMP06 Apr 2017 8:44 a.m. PST

The regime in Pyongyang wants the world to believe it's crazy enough to fire off a nuke … so that it doesn't actually have to do so.

Yup yup. And China allows them to play this game so they (a) have a buffer state between them and RoK/Japan, (b) to provide a convenient distraction while they build islands in disputed areas, and (c) to keep a flood of desperate/hungry Koreans from heading north.

Pan Marek Supporting Member of TMP06 Apr 2017 8:51 a.m. PST

If war starts with NK, Seoul and its environs are toast. And NK does not need nukes to do it. Hence, the need to de-escalate the situation.

CorroPredo Supporting Member of TMP06 Apr 2017 8:57 a.m. PST

"little Kim is not invading anyone. The South is more than capable; your Hitler analogy does not hold up. He likes to rattle his saber because he knows when he does that the food will flow in to get him to stop. We've trained him that way."
" Except the strategic goals of the North Korean regime are basically deterrence of invasion and regime sustainment, as they have long since passed the point of being able to win a conventional offensive war with the ROK. If their nuclear ambitions were meant to facilitate conquering the South, their delivery platform R&D wouldn't be so focused on long-range missiles. Your own link says as much"
Funny, but that's exactly NOT the way the recent North Korean defector put it…..

darthfozzywig Supporting Member of TMP06 Apr 2017 8:59 a.m. PST

Because the North Koreans would never use a fake defector to spread misinformation, nor would a real defector tell people a story they want to hear.

I'll go with fifty years of demonstrated behavior over "this one guy said."

Personal logo piper909 Supporting Member of TMP06 Apr 2017 9:21 a.m. PST

Sobieski,
Yes, I know what you're talking about. But I meant something along the lines of a Pearl Harbor-level event, open and impossible to miss. And without even a pretense of camouflage or apologies.

Control of the language is everything, as Orwell knew.
Sneak attack = someone else does it
Pre-emptive strike = we do it

When I hear talk of how the US is going to "decapitate" North Korea and "surgically" remove their missile capacity, I keep thinking of RFK during the Cuban missile crisis telling the gung-ho, "let's bomb now!" military advisors that he didn't want his brother to be remembered as "the American Tojo." It seems quaintly pacifistic compared to the tenor of today.

Defector's stories need to be taken with a great deal of salt, since they often say exactly what their hosts want to hear. Or are deluded. Chalabi wasn't exactly a font of wisdom about the situation in Iraq, was he? (And he may, in fact, have been playing a double game as an Iranian agent -- and/or CIA "asset" -- as well as looking to secure himself a nice sinecure in a post-war Iraq.)

dsfrank06 Apr 2017 10:04 a.m. PST

I'm not sure what the current administration will do – but I'm pretty sure it will be the wrong thing to do

USAFpilot06 Apr 2017 3:11 p.m. PST

I think the only people who want war are the main stream media. They love a good war; it's good for ratings. Truly disgusting.

Bangorstu06 Apr 2017 3:42 p.m. PST

It's one of those issues left alone too long and now there are no good solutions.

Sooner or later they'll get the ability to nuke Japan and/or California.

Given the nature of the regime, this can't be allowed to happen.

But getting rid of Lil Kim is a major ball ache that will involve a proper, major war of the likes we've not seen in decades.
m
Best hope is China deals with the problem by getting rid of the current dynasty and replacing with some technocrat who isn't mental..

Personal logo Weasel Supporting Member of TMP06 Apr 2017 5:40 p.m. PST

It's hard to think of an outcome that isn't awful for everyone involved.

What would victory even look like? What would it cost?

Noble713 Inactive Member06 Apr 2017 7:47 p.m. PST

Sooner or later they'll get the ability to nuke Japan and/or California.

Personally I'm more worried about them miniaturizing nukes until they can fire them from tube artillery. At that point it would totally up-end the balance of power along the DMZ, as they could fire a barrage of tactical nukes with no warning that clear minefields and fortifications and inflict mass casualties. Then the North could swarm across the border with significantly less resistance and stand a real chance of overwhelming the defenders and reaching Seoul.

Bangorstu06 Apr 2017 11:06 p.m. PST

If they had them they could simply eliminate Seoul…

No good options. None at all.

Lion in the Stars07 Apr 2017 2:32 a.m. PST

The Norks do not need nukes to annihilate Seoul, their conventional delivery capability within range of Seoul is measured in kilotons/second. Seoul is only like 15km south of the DMZ, guys!

I'm also pretty sure that both the UN resolutions authorizing the use of force and the US Congressional approvals of said UN resolutions are still in force, because the Korean War never actually ended. It's still under a temporary cease-fire, not a surrender or cessation of hostilities.

PMC31707 Apr 2017 3:26 a.m. PST

So which is the least worst?

Presumably the one in which the least number of people die.

But which one is that?

Strategic bombing?
Tactical bombing?
Assassination?
Invasion and war?

Crystal ball time!

GeoffQRF Inactive Member07 Apr 2017 4:22 a.m. PST

My worry is that he is looking for a war to stamp his mark on his presidency.

Bangorstu07 Apr 2017 5:37 a.m. PST

Well he's found one…. but his acitons might cocnentrate Chinese minds.

Personal logo piper909 Supporting Member of TMP07 Apr 2017 10:18 a.m. PST

Perhaps the thinking is that we (the US) can simply conduct missile and bomb strikes from afar and not have to get further involved, and that the No. Koreans will simply have to accept it, much as the Syrians have to in the face of Israeli (and now US) strikes, unable to retaliate, and that this will "send a message." But it's harder to think of NK being willing to let a strike take place without responding than enfeebled Syria, or Serbia back in 1999. It might just be a messy series of bombardments and artillery/missile exchanges, but that could so easily get out of hand.

The ante gets upped if NK strikes back at targets in Japan, or makes a hit on a US warship.

Not a pretty picture to contemplate.

PMC31710 Apr 2017 1:23 a.m. PST

There is absolutely no way the DPRK would NOT respond. They'd have to – they've spent over fifty years building up their military and putting it into positions of power and strength and yelling and sabre-rattling and on and on… and a tit-for-tat exchange with the US is a lot more dangerous than a tit-for-tat with the South.

Especially with an unpredictable loon like Pres. Trump in office.

zoneofcontrol10 Apr 2017 8:00 p.m. PST

I have a different picture of events unfolding. A blockade up north along China's NK border. A US naval task force to back up a blockade along South Korea's northern (DMZ) border. This forces John McCain's "crazy fat kid" to make the aggressor moves. With nukes and lots of conventional stuff to deal with, I don't see the US or China starting the actual shooting. Maybe just a good squeeze to pop the zit to force out the pus.

I am actually interested to see what, if anything, may happen during the US delegation visit to Russia. I can envision Russia stealing a page from the US raid in Syria. Maybe a little tit-for-tat stunt while hosting the US officials at a dinner party. There may be a need to remind everyone, friend & foe, of their relevance.

Lion in the Stars12 Apr 2017 6:02 p.m. PST

One of the biggest problems with the Korean situation is that the Koreans don't want to be a client state of either China or Japan, waaaaaaaay too much bad blood going back two millennia.

So the Koreans want a "big brother" to keep the Chinese and Japanese from invading. Again.

The Chinese don't want an ally of a major competitor (like the US) on their border, which is why they don't support the South Koreans attacking North and settling this bit of nastiness.

I think what needs to happen is to remind the Chinese that it will take at least 30 years, if not 50, for the South Korean economy to recover from absorbing the Norks. If we can get the Chinese on the side of stomping the Norks, that's game over.

Rod I Robertson Supporting Member of TMP Inactive Member12 Apr 2017 6:56 p.m. PST

Remember North Korea has a land border with Russia too. The Russians could thwart a blockade even if the US managed to get China to play ball.

China in no way wants a reunified Korea under Southern Leadership, even if such a unified Korea was hobbled by the economic challenges of reunification. My guess is those 150,000 troops along the border will enter North Korea should hostilities break out and then China will declare that any future attack on North Korea will be viewed as an attack on China triggering a Chinese response up to and including Chinese nuclear weapon strikes on South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Canada and even the United States. When faced with a democratic country being aggressive and posing an existential threat to China, crazy might be the only winning strategy if it triggers a popular rebellion of the US people against their own government's military policy.

Rod Robertson.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.