N Korea promises to 'wipe out' US forces

[e-brake]

Once again I gotta wonder, WTF are we doing in Iraq when there are rouge nations like this out there pissing on us daily:

http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds...fx2822575.html

SEOUL (XFN-ASIA) - North Korea threatened to 'mercilessly wipe out' US forces in case of war during a national meeting to mark leader Kim Jong-Il's 42 years' work at the ruling party, according to a ruling party report carried by the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA).

The threat came as North Korea was reportedly preparing to test-fire a long-range missile despite strong protests from the United States and its allies.

Choe Thae Bok, a ranking Workers Party official, said Washington is 'hell-bent on provocations of war of aggression' in the report to mark the 42nd anniversary of Kim's start at the party, KCNA said.

'If the enemies ignite a war eventually, the Korean army and people will mercilessly wipe out the aggressors and give vent to the deep-rooted grudge of the nation,' Choe was quoted as telling the meeting.

North Koreans are customarily advised to watch the televised event, according to Seoul officials who cautiously questioned a news report that had linked the notice to a possible missile launch.

Japanese and South Korean media said North Korea is planning a missile test for this weekend.

South Korea's Yonhap news agency quoted an unnamed source as saying the missile launch could take place either Sunday or Monday.

But as of today, North Korea has not been confirmed yet to have fueled the missile at a launch pad in the remote northeast of the country, the final step before a test-firing, Agence France-Presse reported

[PETA]

Originally Posted by e-brake

Once again I gotta wonder, WTF are we doing in Iraq when there are rouge nations like this out there pissing on us daily:

We don't attack states with nukes. We will attack states to prevent them from getting them though.

[tricky]

Originally Posted by xian

We don't attack states with nukes. We will attack states to prevent them from getting them though.

and if they attack us...we will use what troops ?

oh thats right, they're all busy nationbuilding and being killed by IED's

[PETA]

Originally Posted by tricky

and if they attack us...we will use what troops ?

oh thats right, they're all busy nationbuilding and being killed by IED's

I've been told that we station just enough troops in SK to serve as a deterrant.. eg - our troops (about 20,000?) cannot offer anything other than token resistence against the NK army of approximately 1,000,000.

However, if those 20,000 are attacked there will be large numbers of prisoners - thus guaranteeing a very strong response.

That response would destroy the current regime thus discouraging the leadership from attacking.

If the North attacked today and we had no troops in Afganistan or Iraq we still wouldn't be able to have a sufficient force ready to put boots on the groud for some time. Think how long it took to get everything in place for Gulf War I. I do think we'd have a couple carriers there in a matter of days and they'd raise some serious hell in softening up the NK army. The worry of NK launching a nuke would be real. That the primary deterrant didn't work suggests that the nuclear retaliation deterrant might not work. Plus there are problems with China - how would they react? At the end of the day I'm thinking they don't want a serious and significant American military contingent operating so close to her borders - and so I think China would yank NKs leash awfully hard.

How we'd assemble a force to fight in NK - I do not know - but I'm not so certain that egagement in Iraq/Afganistan would prevent a response in NK (which you imply). Probably a question better responded to by nysteshade or other cat with real experience and knowledge on the topic.

[Dionysos]

Originally Posted by xian

If the North attacked today and we had no troops in Afganistan or Iraq we still wouldn't be able to have a sufficient force ready to put boots on the groud for some time. Think how long it took to get everything in place for Gulf War I.

It would take substantially less time because troops would be based closer to the area than they were in '90/'91. It's a moot point though, we will have bases in Afghanistan & Iraq for the next 30+ years anyway so there will always be troops in those countries in some capacity.

Originally Posted by xian

How we'd assemble a force to fight in NK - I do not know -

I do: draft

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Dionysos

I do: draft

I know that is a lingering fear for many people - especially (and reasonably) those of draftable age.

Anyway - not sure that would be necessary - not sure it wouldn't. It is an interesting question.

[Dionysos]

Originally Posted by xian

I know that is a lingering fear for many people - especially (and reasonably) those of draftable age.

Anyway - not sure that would be necessary - not sure it wouldn't. It is an interesting question.

You said it yourself, NK has 1 million troops. You think we have the forces to spare from the volunteer army & reserves to fight a war in Korea AND Iraq AND Afghanistan AND defend our own borders? Do I need to break out a history book about how our ground forces did the last time they went into Korea? We had anywhere between 300k-500k troops there during the Korean War. You seen that many spares hanging around here?

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Dionysos

You said it yourself, NK has 1 million troops. You think we have the forces to spare from the volunteer army & reserves to fight a war in Korea AND Iraq AND Afghanistan AND defend our own borders? Do I need to break out a history book about how our ground forces did the last time they went into Korea? We had anywhere between 300k-500k troops there during the Korean War. You seen that many spares hanging around here?

I'm not so certain we'd need any boots on the ground. A couple carrier groups could lay the leadership low. Even if China permitted the fight to happen and even if a stupid Kim Jong Il invaded - that doesn't mean all his generals are equally insane and that they wouldn't depose the idiot and end the slaughter of their troops from airplanes they can't fight against.

Do we have 300-500k in the Army and Marines currently (regardless of duty stations)?

I agree that if we had to fight a land war there... what was that rule about going in against Sicilians when death is on the line?

In any event, I don't see China permitting this happening. If KJI does it anyway I can't see China permitting it to eascalate. The risks of dragging China into a hot war are too great and the cost of such a war too high... for everyone.

[Dionysos]

Originally Posted by xian

I'm not so certain we'd need any boots on the ground.

You always need boots on the ground. Even in the first Iraq War we needed ground troops, even if they were the 2nd wave to the air strikes. They still had to be on the ground as a threat to Iraq, and they would in any Korean invasion as well. I don't know how you think we'd be able to wage a war solely through the air, especially seeing as how we never have before.

[Nyteshade]

Our current forces total approx 2 million in all branches active and reserve. The entire pacific fleet has been considered non-deployable due to NK. If NK starts a fight, we have a sufficient force to keep them at bay long enough for more to arrive. We only have about 1/8 of our military in Iraq at any time and that is almost entirely boots and support. Our naval and air power is barely even being tapped right now.

[kalamu]

why must we act stubborn and go attack someone who is threatening us? seems like the kind of response a child would have who cannot control their anger.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Dionysos

You always need boots on the ground. Even in the first Iraq War we needed ground troops, even if they were the 2nd wave to the air strikes. They still had to be on the ground as a threat to Iraq, and they would in any Korean invasion as well. I don't know how you think we'd be able to wage a war solely through the air, especially seeing as how we never have before.

I don't think it probable - just possible to fight and win without putting boots on the ground. How? As I described... sufficient destruction to the NK Army with no damage to the carrier groups could lead to the NK generals toppling KJI to put an end to the war.

If a war did happen almost certainly you're right that we'd need troops on NK soil. However, there are so many moving pieces to speculate on that there is plenty of room for many competing scenerios - I was just offering one.

Originally Posted by Nyteshade

Our current forces total approx 2 million in all branches active and reserve. The entire pacific fleet has been considered non-deployable due to NK. If NK starts a fight, we have a sufficient force to keep them at bay long enough for more to arrive. We only have about 1/8 of our military in Iraq at any time and that is almost entirely boots and support. Our naval and air power is barely even being tapped right now.

I'm advised by a naval officer that I know quite well that the Navy is actually about to (or may have already) start sending sailors to replace troops on the ground in Iraq. I'm not sure in what capacity but it was an intersting comment.

Originally Posted by kalamu

why must we act stubborn and go attack someone who is threatening us? seems like the kind of response a child would have who cannot control their anger.

failure to respond to a threat often leads to larger more real and more dangerous threats



failing to address a challenge that threatens national security is a breach of the duty of our government (now - we can debate all day on what a sufficient threat is that compels action - or rather we won't - but the duty does exist even if circumstances that compel action is a matter of debate)

[kalamu]

so if you feel that way, why must we respond with more threats and more violence? don't you agree that it's rather childish?

[PETA]

Originally Posted by kalamu

so if you feel that way, why must we respond with more threats and more violence? don't you agree that it's rather childish?

No, I think it's childish to ignore national security threats.

Neville Chamberlain did it. He wasn't very satisfied with the results. The fact is that appeasement is a bankrupt policy that merely prolongs the start date of a fight. Churchill said it was feeding the alligator hoping you get eaten last - or something like that.

In any event - our policy towards NK has been stupid for quite some time. However, now that they're in the nuke club its even more complicated and less clear how to respond. Frankly, my preferred course (I think) wouldf be to withdraw from the peninsula to the joy of many S. Koreans (and lament of many politicians who loved having the US as a bogey man to rally populist support) and leave them to the Chinese to deal with while encouraging Japan to remilitarize as a counterbalancing power on the region.

[kalamu]

Originally Posted by xian

No, I think it's childish to ignore national security threats.

oh okay. i see... so it's either threaten or attack back or else you are forced to just ignore it.

glad you're not in any leadership position in this country.