Posted on 10/11/2006 7:03:38 PM PDT by Flavius
PLANS previously drafted by the Pentagon predict 52,000 US military casualties and one million civilian dead in the first 90 days of conflict if America attacked Pyongyang. The US leadership is looking at international economic and diplomatic sanctions against North Korea as its primary response to Monday's nuclear test.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.au ...
No need to go nuke the North Koreans.
I say we just carpet bomb all of North Korea with buckets of KFC, drop some Big Macs, Whoppers, White Castle sliders, etc.
I am sure the shock of eating food, especially fast food would send their digestive systems into complete shock and they would all drop over dead.
Although by doing this we would risk getting a nasty letter of condemnation from the U.N. and there would be special invesigations and lawsuits.
Hmmm, ok, your right, lets just nuke the bastards!
However, the SOP for a war with NK is to lay down a nuclear "wall" at the 38th parallel...or shortly below it. There has been no plan for a ground war in Korea for AT LEAST 30 years. The US has only one response to a NK invasion of the south, nukes and more nukes.
Once hostilities open, the precision muntions approach would work. The problem is 10,000 artillery tubes within range of Seoul, some equipped with nerve gas shells, can do a hell of a lot of damage even if each gets only one shot. The problem with the precision munitions approach isn't with the kill ratio--doubtless comparable to tac nukes--but the kill *rate*. Tac nukes strike me as the only way to take out a large enough percentage of them quickly enough to preserve Seoul more-or-less intact.
The U.S. has allowed a military build-up for a long time. It doesn't seem to make any difference to the U.S.
Nothing like the massing of millions of troops on the border has occurred.
There was lots of "yapping" at Saddam for years too. Now he is in jail.
Sorry, but these are Orientals, and they are much tougher than Iraquis.
Tis a good thing I'm not the President. Long story short.... I'd ask Rummy to "take out the trash."
Are they tougher baked or broiled?
We don't have that luxury with Islam. We're dicking around with religious fanatics not seen since the 7th century. Religious fanatics who want to kill unbelievers on scale of the Crusades, only they want to do it in the blink of an eye. With a radioactive fire that burns for a thousand years.
Sad but very true. Which is why we desperately need rigorous enforcement of our borders. It's going to be some nut cases smuggling components for a bunch of dirty bombs and God knows what else that is going to wind up wreaking havoc upon us one day ( God forbid ).
Can we send in a bunker buster to nail his wine/whiskey celler? That would send him into the DT's and he won't have a fighting chance.
Like with did with Iraq, right?
Doesn't wash, does it?
South Korea should be learning to use their shelters. With luck they won't come off "much" worse than the Israelis. But it won't be nice.
Sounds like a plan. Let;s stop pretending that Kim is anything but a puppet. If he were not, he would be gone tomorrow.
Why would we lose any US military? Just fly over and drop stuff.
That's only if there were a million of them left alive.
This makes no sense. They can't come and get us, but we can sure bomb the snot out of them with our superior firepower.
How do they figure 52K US servicemen?
Truman fought a war against the Red Chinese, after whipping the North Koreans. He didn't nuke them it's true, but he didn't beat them either.
Slip in an order for one nuke with our next order of cheap shoes from China and have them drop-ship it to NK (from high altitude). It'll give a whole new meaning to drop-shipments.
To be honest, I don't know. However, this is a good thread even if it's filled with speculation that ranges from the wild-eyed to the semi-serious.
I don't think nukes is feasible but the situation is very frustrating. My father fought in the Korean War and it was just horrible, the weather, terrain, and the men getting cut down by an endless stream of Chinese "volunteers."
Actually for all but the softest targets, an equivalent weight of cluster bombs would be more effective. Precision guided bombs to take out command and control, any artillery that still had crews to service it, and any tanks or other armored vehicles. Although we have a sort of cluster bomb like affair, CBU-97 that's hell on armored vehicles too. (At one point, the submunitions were called "Skeet", very appropriate really).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.