US fears 'hell' of a response [North Korea]

Hearld Sun ^

[bill1952]

Other estimates say the US would need at least 500,000 ground troops to secure against a North invasion of the South

right...

[Zack Nguyen]

That would be just horrible. God willing Kim's regime will simply collapse of its own weight. Though if it does the people of North Korea may simply trade one tyrant for another, as China will move in.

[Westbrook]

I'm sure that a few well placed tactical nukes would reduce NoKo military response significantly.

A preemptive and massive tactical strike on their wehrmacht would be de-riguer, but if they retaliated by targetting civilian populations, tactical or even strategic nukes would put a rapid stop to it.

.

[gura]

South Korea's Army could easily handle NK on their own. US air/naval strikes and resupply would be a big help, but not necessary.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Keep in mind that the US military is famous for using worst-case scenarios like these so that people won't be surprised if it actually happens.

[NonValueAdded]

Indeed ... cauterize the area north of the DMZ as step one and the threat to Seoul would be greatly reduced. Carpet bomb the rest of NK with food and the population would be too busy eating to be a cohesive military force.

The resumption of hostilities with NK will not involve ground troops this time. That would be beyond stupid.

[finnman69]

neutron bombs

[Altair333]

"South Korea's Army could easily handle NK on their own."

They sure didn't the last time. And there's nothing to prevent their largest city from being obliterated by artillery.

Bush is handling NK pretty well- there are nothing but bad options there.

[ExTexasRedhead]

Reminiscent of the predictions before the two Gulf Wars. Based on all the predictions, why don't we all just drink Koolaid since we, apparently based on predictions, can't beat anyone. I'm so sick of all the negativity.

[TommyDale]

Only one million civilians lost? That would be a benefit to North Korea, who can't feed the civilians they have now...

This is all presuming no nukes would be used, obviously. One strategically placed nuke would end it quickly with a minimum of U.S. armed forces lost. The big question is, "Are we prepared to use real force?"

[Brilliant]

Which is why I've been saying for years that if war breaks out in the Korean peninsula, things will go nuclear very quickly.

[r9etb]

Stratfor has the unfortunate tendency to vastly overestimate the military difficulties and costs of US offensive action.

That's not to say that fighting NK wouldn't be costly, especially for the South Koreans -- but the scenario laid out here would have to be called a 10-sigma worst case.

[maquiladora]

The problem is that there are hundreds of long range artillery and rocket units all along the DMZ, just a few tactical nukes wouldn't prevent a massive retaliation.
You'd almost need a totally unrealistic chain of dozens of nuclear strikes all along the DMZ to have any impact, and with Seoul being just 30 miles away from the border, more people would probably end up dying from fallout than anything else.

It really is an amazingly difficult and horrible situatuion.

[hgro]

Sounds like this guy is on the N. Korean payroll.

[1234]

...strategic nukes would put a rapid stop to it

that's the point: there'd be no response by the other side-no casualties in s korea.

we jus gotta get over the PC stuff re. preemptive action in name of US nat'l security....

[GSlob]

saturation carpet nuking as the opening.

[maquiladora]

Reminiscent of the predictions before the two Gulf Wars.

I don't recall Saddam having 10,000 artillery and rocket launchers 30 miles from a city of 10 million people. Do you?

[farlander]

Yea, except this time the NK army is 1M starving, instead of fed, men. Tho you're right. It's being handled as best as can be, with nothing but bad options.