Spread too thin?

[Kebean PFC]

you are the problem with america.

Kmack stop with the abusive posts. We don't agree with you, then argue your point, don't start with the personal insults.

The US could win a ground was in NK with or without Chinese involvement. First off, the US is mechanized, while both the Chinese army and the NK army are mainly infantry units. It would be a hard and brutal war, but we could win it. Your defeatism is amazing.

we could NEVER win a ground war in in North Korea(those winters!) against CHINA and North Korea. dont be so stupid

We did in the past and we could again. The only reason we pulled out (as stated before) was the US govt. did not want to fight the Chinese. The US Army was at the NK-China border. Maybe if you would look at the facts you would learn some stuff instead of continually saying what the US can't do, and realise what we did and can do.

 

[GiaOmerta]

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Military branches:
Army, Navy and Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard (Coast Guard administered in peacetime by the Department of Homeland Security, but in wartime reports to the Department of the Navy)
Military manpower - military age and obligation:
18 years of age (2004 est.)
Military manpower - availability:
males age 15-49: 73,597,731 (2004 est.)
Military manpower - fit for military service:
NA (2004 est.)
Military manpower - reaching military age annually:
males: 2,124,164 (2004 est.)
Military expenditures - dollar figure:
$370.7 billion (FY04 est.) (March 2003)

JAPAN

Military branches:
Ground Self-Defense Force (Army), Maritime Self-Defense Force (Navy), Air Self-Defense Force (Air Force), Coast Guard
Military manpower - military age and obligation:
18 years of age for voluntary military service (2001)
Military manpower - availability:
males age 15-49: 29,179,095 (2004 est.)
Military manpower - fit for military service:
males age 15-49: 25,189,438 (2004 est.)
Military manpower - reaching military age annually:
males: 700,931 (2004 est.)
Military expenditures - dollar figure:
$42,488.1 million (2003)

SOUTH KOREA

Military branches:
Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, National Maritime Police (Coast Guard)
Military manpower - military age and obligation:
20-30 years of age for compulsory military service; conscript service obligation - 24-28 months, depending on the military branch involved; 18 years of age for voluntary military service (2004)
Military manpower - availability:
males age 15-49: 14,233,895 (2004 est.)
Military manpower - fit for military service:
males age 15-49: 8,966,241 (2004 est.)
Military manpower - reaching military age annually:
males: 341,697 (2004 est.)
Military expenditures - dollar figure:
$14.522 billion (FY03)

compared to

NORTH KOREA

Military branches:
Korean People's Army (includes Army, Navy, Air Force), Civil Security Forces
Military manpower - military age and obligation:
17 years of age (2004 est.)
Military manpower - availability:
males age 15-49: 6,181,038 (2004 est.)
Military manpower - fit for military service:
males age 15-49: 3,694,855 (2004 est.)
Military manpower - reaching military age annually:
males: 189,014 (2004 est.)

North Korea is outgunned. Simply put.

For economical reasons, I seriously doubt the Chinese would be an opponent if North Korea was forcefully disarmed.

EDIT: And like I said before,

Nothing the Marines can't handle.

 

[kmack]

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Military branches:
Army, Navy and Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard (Coast Guard administered in peacetime by the Department of Homeland Security, but in wartime reports to the Department of the Navy)
Military manpower - military age and obligation:
18 years of age (2004 est.)
Military manpower - availability:
males age 15-49: 73,597,731 (2004 est.)
Military manpower - fit for military service:
NA (2004 est.)
Military manpower - reaching military age annually:
males: 2,124,164 (2004 est.)
Military expenditures - dollar figure:
$370.7 billion (FY04 est.) (March 2003)

JAPAN

Military branches:
Ground Self-Defense Force (Army), Maritime Self-Defense Force (Navy), Air Self-Defense Force (Air Force), Coast Guard
Military manpower - military age and obligation:
18 years of age for voluntary military service (2001)
Military manpower - availability:
males age 15-49: 29,179,095 (2004 est.)
Military manpower - fit for military service:
males age 15-49: 25,189,438 (2004 est.)
Military manpower - reaching military age annually:
males: 700,931 (2004 est.)
Military expenditures - dollar figure:
$42,488.1 million (2003)

SOUTH KOREA

Military branches:
Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, National Maritime Police (Coast Guard)
Military manpower - military age and obligation:
20-30 years of age for compulsory military service; conscript service obligation - 24-28 months, depending on the military branch involved; 18 years of age for voluntary military service (2004)
Military manpower - availability:
males age 15-49: 14,233,895 (2004 est.)
Military manpower - fit for military service:
males age 15-49: 8,966,241 (2004 est.)
Military manpower - reaching military age annually:
males: 341,697 (2004 est.)
Military expenditures - dollar figure:
$14.522 billion (FY03)

compared to

NORTH KOREA

Military branches:
Korean People's Army (includes Army, Navy, Air Force), Civil Security Forces
Military manpower - military age and obligation:
17 years of age (2004 est.)
Military manpower - availability:
males age 15-49: 6,181,038 (2004 est.)
Military manpower - fit for military service:
males age 15-49: 3,694,855 (2004 est.)
Military manpower - reaching military age annually:
males: 189,014 (2004 est.)

North Korea is outgunned. Simply put.

For economical reasons, I seriously doubt the Chinese would be an opponent if North Korea was forcefully disarmed.

EDIT: And like I said before,

Nothing the Marines can't handle.

5 or 6 nuclear bombs going off in south korea on our bases, or worse in Japan

dont be soo ignorant, and the marins couldnt handle it, have you ever heard of the frozen chosin? technology is bettter now, but we dont stand a chance against nukes.

 

[Razor]

Kmack stop with the abusive posts. We don't agree with you, then argue your point, don't start with the personal insults.

The US could win a ground was in NK with or without Chinese involvement. First off, the US is mechanized, while both the Chinese army and the NK army are mainly infantry units. It would be a hard and brutal war, but we could win it. Your defeatism is amazing.


We did in the past and we could again. The only reason we pulled out (as stated before) was the US govt. did not want to fight the Chinese. The US Army was at the NK-China border. Maybe if you would look at the facts you would learn some stuff instead of continually saying what the US can't do, and realise what we did and can do.

The Us Army wasn't at the Chinese border, the Us Army actually invaded China which was the factor that brought China into the war. China pushed the Nato forces back to 38th Parallel upon which the peace treaty was signed.

 

[Kebean PFC]

Again, we were not "pushed back" we left due to our govt. not having the backbone to sustain war with China. If the order had been signed to continue war, we would have and most likely would have won.

Also, if NK used nukes, the rest of the world MAY have the balls to turn NK into glass. But, then again maybe not, and if not, i am pretty sure all countries would glare upon NK and maybe go to war, therefore increasing the sheer weight of #s on NK. I don't think China would be foolish enough to start another World War.

 

[GiaOmerta]

have you ever heard of the frozen chosin?

Of course.
125,000 Chinese + Worst Winter Conditions in 100 years vs. 8,000 Marines

"The American Marine First Division has the highest combat effectiveness in the American armed forces. It seems not enough for our four divisions to surround and annihilate its two regiments. (You) should have one or two more divisions as a reserve force."

5 or 6 nuclear bombs going off in south korea on our bases, or worse in Japan

The 22 known nuclear facilities would have to be taken care of before a nuclear strike could take place. (Early Warning Systems, etc.) We've got nuclear capablites in that region if push comes to shove. If it came to this, China would probaly step it. (Dangers of radiation.)

technology is bettter now, but we dont stand a chance against nukes.

Your right, that's why you need to knock them out before they are able to launch. Wither we level these facilities or knock their electronics out with an EMP and eliminate the base personnel with a neutron bomb. Alot of 'toys' can be used.

 

[kmack]

Of course.
125,000 Chinese + Worst Winter Conditions in 100 years vs. 8,000 Marines

lol, ahhh google

The 22 known nuclear facilities would have to be taken care of before a nuclear strike could take place. (Early Warning Systems, etc.) We've got nuclear capablites in that region if push comes to shove. If it came to this, China would probaly step it. (Dangers of radiation.)

they would launch the instant they saw threats inbound in a situation where the US is attacking them on their soil.

Your right, that's why you need to knock them out before they are able to launch. Wither we level these facilities or knock their electronics out with an EMP and eliminate the base personnel with a neutron bomb. Alot of 'toys' can be used.

and what exactly, would prompt us to do this?

 

[GiaOmerta]

lol, ahhh google

Ahhh your face. I'm proud of the Corps. Shove it.

and what exactly, would prompt us to do this?

If they were preparing to launch.

 

[kmack]

Ahhh your face. I'm proud of the Corps. Shove it.

me too (im sure you've heard of chesty puller, basically drilled it into my skull, he is a hero of mine).

If they were preparing to launch.

thats too late im afraid.

 

[Razor]

For North Korea to retaliate against a first strike by the United States, they would need to use ballistic missiles with solid rocket boosters, they would also need an Early Warning System that was capable of detecting the icbms. But America "would" never perform a first strike against North Korea when it comes to Nuclear Weapons, as no matter how bad North Korea is, the rest of the world would still look very angrily at the United States government and America would incur definate problems from the other UN nations.

 

[kmack]

For North Korea to retaliate against a first strike by the United States, they would need to use ballistic missiles with solid rocket boosters, they would also need an Early Warning System that was capable of detecting the icbms. But America "would" never perform a first strike against North Korea when it comes to Nuclear Weapons, as no matter how bad North Korea is, the rest of the world would still look very angrily at the United States government and America would incur definate problems from the other UN nations.

exactly my point

 

[Kebean PFC]

However if the NK tried a nuke launch first, i don't believe the rest of the world wouldn't look at us that harshly if we nuked them. There would always be those opposed to it, but i believe that the majority would agree. At the least they would sent in a NATO force.

 

[bliink]

The 22 known nuclear facilities would have to be taken care of before a nuclear strike could take place.

You do realise that the major portion of China's nuclear arsenal is mobile, and concealed in various mountainous regions. Launch facilities are present, but they are not part of the nuclear backbone of the country.

China could launch a highly effective nuclear strike even if attacked by the US

 

[Calanen]

you are an assclown, we could NEVER win a ground war in in North Korea(those winters!) against CHINA and North Korea. dont be so stupid, you're the chump who thinks we only lost vietnam because the troops had their hands tied, your logic is not just flawed, it is nonexistant. dont waste your energy typing such nonsense.

You really need to get some perspective. Personal insults are just childishness - stick to the point, if you have one.

 

[GiaOmerta]

You do realise that the major portion of China's nuclear arsenal is mobile, and concealed in various mountainous regions. Launch facilities are present, but they are not part of the nuclear backbone of the country.

China could launch a highly effective nuclear strike even if attacked by the US

Was talking about North Korea.

 

[Some_God]

Gia, it's nice that you are proud of the Marines and all but be realistic. If the North Koreans invade the South, it will be a fast and devastating attack. By the time the US Military responds most of the peninsula will be occupied and we will have a Pusan repeat.

The SK and US forces stationed at or near the DMZ will quickly be overrun, as around 60-80% of the NKA is going to be used. In addition, NK has the largest number of special forces soldiers of any country. The terrian is not Iraq, not sandy, and not a place where US aircraft can pick off targets as they did during Gulf War I.

The Marines, assuming that they are the quick reaction force, will have a huge job ahead of them. I would think that they would just establish a beachhead (or something of that nature) and wait for its big brother, the Army, to arrive.

[end rant] sry about english... wrote on the run.

 

[Lemonking]

golly if only the Germans would have guts....The Waffen SS could handle anything


NO im not talking about killing jews Im talking millitary wise

 

[GiaOmerta]

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Military branches:
Army, Navy and Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard (Coast Guard administered in peacetime by the Department of Homeland Security, but in wartime reports to the Department of the Navy)
Military manpower - military age and obligation:
18 years of age (2004 est.)
Military manpower - availability:
males age 15-49: 73,597,731 (2004 est.)
Military manpower - fit for military service:
NA (2004 est.)
Military manpower - reaching military age annually:
males: 2,124,164 (2004 est.)
Military expenditures - dollar figure:
$370.7 billion (FY04 est.) (March 2003)

JAPAN

Military branches:
Ground Self-Defense Force (Army), Maritime Self-Defense Force (Navy), Air Self-Defense Force (Air Force), Coast Guard
Military manpower - military age and obligation:
18 years of age for voluntary military service (2001)
Military manpower - availability:
males age 15-49: 29,179,095 (2004 est.)
Military manpower - fit for military service:
males age 15-49: 25,189,438 (2004 est.)
Military manpower - reaching military age annually:
males: 700,931 (2004 est.)
Military expenditures - dollar figure:
$42,488.1 million (2003)

SOUTH KOREA

Military branches:
Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, National Maritime Police (Coast Guard)
Military manpower - military age and obligation:
20-30 years of age for compulsory military service; conscript service obligation - 24-28 months, depending on the military branch involved; 18 years of age for voluntary military service (2004)
Military manpower - availability:
males age 15-49: 14,233,895 (2004 est.)
Military manpower - fit for military service:
males age 15-49: 8,966,241 (2004 est.)
Military manpower - reaching military age annually:
males: 341,697 (2004 est.)
Military expenditures - dollar figure:
$14.522 billion (FY03)

compared to

NORTH KOREA

Military branches:
Korean People's Army (includes Army, Navy, Air Force), Civil Security Forces
Military manpower - military age and obligation:
17 years of age (2004 est.)
Military manpower - availability:
males age 15-49: 6,181,038 (2004 est.)
Military manpower - fit for military service:
males age 15-49: 3,694,855 (2004 est.)
Military manpower - reaching military age annually:
males: 189,014 (2004 est.)

Yes, it would be a bloody conflict and the momentum of a full scale North Korea invasion into South Korea would definately push South Korean defenders back from the DMZ, but in the end NK is outgunned.

As kmack said, the issue is North Korea's nuclear capabilites and willingness to us them.

 

[CptStern]

"the issue is North Korea's nuclear capabilites and willingness to us them"


where have I heard that before?


"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

George Bush March 18, 2003

 

[The Monkey]

Military manpower - availability:
males age 15-49: 73,597,731 (2004 est.)

That number could easily be doubled by counting the women too. They're as good as, if not better, than men at war.

 

[shumlya4012]

call me stupid, but why would NK want to attack US?

 

[GiaOmerta]

"the issue is North Korea's nuclear capabilites and willingness to us them"


where have I heard that before?


"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

George Bush March 18, 2003

The regime in reference was not willing to use EDIT: their 'lethal weapons'
Hopefully it's the same case with Kim Jong Il.

We should of destroyed all traces of the Manhattan Project after the surrender of Japan and globally ban the use of such devices.

 

[Kebean PFC]

Cpt Stern, please stop derailing threads with your Iraq crap.

If the NK invaded, the DMZ would be overrun, but i doubt they would be able to push us out entirely. Then the Army/Marines would go in through the open corridor.

A nuclear war with anyone is highly unlikely.

 

[kmack]

Cpt Stern, please stop derailing threads with your Iraq crap.

for gods sake, can you just ignore him if you dont like it, no need to post about it.

If the NK invaded, the DMZ would be overrun, but i doubt they would be able to push us out entirely. Then the Army/Marines would go in through the open corridor.

The Army/Marines from where? we have a few in Iraq, a few in Afghanistan. I smell draft :hmph: . but even if we could get in, we would be fighting in enemy territory, against an enemy that is fighting to protect their HOMES. (you see, when a soldier is fighting for a real cause, they fight harder, so the US troops fighting for god knows what in NK, would not fight as hard as the NK army)

A nuclear war with anyone is highly unlikely.

a risky assessment (and highly uneducated) when dealing with a region and government as volitile as that in North Korea.

 

[C.R.E.A.M.]

i'm not an expert, but doesn't NK realize (or any other country) that if they attack US, they will be wiped out from the face of the earth
I don't think they are that stupid

 

[Kebean PFC]

a risky assessment (and highly uneducated) when dealing with a region and government as volitile as that in North Korea.

Maybe, but the Korean govt. has to know that if it launches nukes the UN would do something.

I smell draft

You betcha.

you see, when a soldier is fighting for a real cause, they fight harder

Yes, to a point, but look at it this way, the French were fighting for thier homes in WWII and they were pushed out. The Germans fought for thier homes at the end of the war, and they were beaten. What i think we would end up facing is a ground war similar to Vietnam, with small gurrilla (sp?) units fighting using hit and run tactics.

 

[GiaOmerta]

The Army/Marines from where?

Okinawa for starters.
We've been increasing our presence in the area over the past few years as well.

 

[15357]

i'm not an expert, but doesn't NK realize (or any other country) that if they attack US, they will be wiped out from the face of the earth
I don't think they are that stupid

with what?

nukes?

they can't nuke the Korean Peninsula because South Korea would protest.

South korea's Constitution says that North Koreans are South Korean citizens.

Cpt Stern, please stop derailing threads with your Iraq crap.

If the NK invaded, the DMZ would be overrun, but i doubt they would be able to push us out entirely. Then the Army/Marines would go in through the open corridor.

A nuclear war with anyone is highly unlikely.

please elaborate the bold text.

 

[kmack]

Yes, to a point, but look at it this way, the French were fighting for thier homes in WWII and they were pushed out. The Germans fought for thier homes at the end of the war, and they were beaten. What i think we would end up facing is a ground war similar to Vietnam, with small gurrilla (sp?) units fighting using hit and run tactics.

we would have nothing to hit lol, that tactic doesnt really work except for the NK using it on us.

 

[Kebean PFC]

we would have nothing to hit lol, that tactic doesnt really work except for the NK using it on us.

That is what i meant

Then the Army/Marines would go in through the open corridor.

What i said was if the North invaded w/out using nukes, then they would not be able to push the units we have stationed there along with SKA units completely off the peninsula. So therefore, we would have a toehold in Korea. That is my "corridor"

 

[kmack]

That is what i meant


What i said was if the North invaded w/out using nukes, then they would not be able to push the units we have stationed there along with SKA units completely off the peninsula. So therefore, we would have a toehold in Korea. That is my "corridor"

a toe hold and a corridor have very different meanings.

 

[Kebean PFC]

Oy, by toehold i don't mean marines pinned down on the beach, i mean a couple cities still in friendly hands.

 

[kmack]

Oy, by toehold i don't mean marines pinned down on the beach, i mean a couple cities still in friendly hands.

a couple of useless border cities, and still powerful speculations, but i see your point. it wont be an all out NK victory, but under our current circumstances i dont thiunk we could win

 

[15357]

a couple of useless border cities, and still powerful speculations, but i see your point. it wont be an all out NK victory, but under our current circumstances i dont thiunk we could win

i agree.

 

[Kebean PFC]

I think we could in the long run. As stated previously, it would be a long and brutal war with many casualties.

 

[kmack]

I think we could in the long run. As stated previously, it would be a long and brutal war with many casualties.

ya, and right now i dont think the US could handle that, bot politically, and locally. not to mention militarily we would be taking focus off the war on terror.

 

[Kebean PFC]

I don;t think the public could handle it. If that is what you mean, i agree. But if you mean we cannot beat them militarily, then i disagree.