Posted on 10/21/2006 8:40:39 AM PDT by maquiladora
If we're going to need that many men we might as well go directly for the source of the problem...Beijing.
LBT
-=-=-
> Only one million civilians lost? That would be a benefit to North Korea, who can't feed the civilians they have now... <
I think the reference is to possible civilian deaths mostly in SOUTH Korea -- due to a massive conventional artillery bombardment of Seoul, with nerve gas thrown in for good measure.
I gathered that, but one million is still a low estimate for an all-out war for either side. If NK drops a nuke on Seoul, they would be committing mass suicide.
Drop food laced with Ex-Lax. The NK's would/will gorge on anything that looks edible. Then, simply march in whilst they're all sitting/crouching over field latrines.
> the NK army is 1M starving, instead of fed, men. <
Everything I've read & heard says the NK army is very well fed -- because the military have been given so much of the food that otherwise would have gone to the 20+ million civilians in that tragic land.
The only solution to protect the 48 million people in South Korea (and other millions in the rest of east asia) is to kill all 23 million people in North Korea.
There are no limited strike options available. It is 100 (200 KT) nukes or surrender after the first 5 minutes.
Dozens?
I think one or two will pretty much take any will to fight away from the NK military. The NK troops aren't Islams willing to kill themselves and their family for Kim Jong. A nuke strike or two will send them out of the area fast, they may be loyal to Kimmie but that loyaly will fade real quick when a mushroom coud appears over the DMZ. Saddam's people were supposed to be willing to die for him too, but they ran like roaches when it came time for the real batttles.
Very well fed vs the population, which is still below normal human standards (even for asia). The guards at the border are the best fed of all, because they want to project the image - but even those guys look like Hollywood anorexia cases.
Answer is: No!
We're too afraid of what "other people" might think. We'd rather play foot-dragging and lose 50,000+ soldiers like we did in Vietnam than use the force we have to put a quick end to it and save lives on both sides, just like Truman did in WWII. Nobody wants that kind of response, but sometimes it's the quickest way to terminate conflict when all other options fail.
I am too but keep in mind that NK is totally different than Iraq. It's a very delicate situation. Personally the Bush administration, from the get-go in 2001, should have totally isolated the regime (no food, no aid, nothing), withdrawn our troops, and put in nuke missiles near the DMZ like Reagan put missiles in Eastern Europe to counter the Soviet threat.
"In the mean time our troops are out of danger."
All this common sense approach to U.S. defense - preemption using all our power.
Why don't the bureaucrats get it?
Possibly Simpler method.
1. Get our troops out.
2. Wait until night, then bomb the ONLY LIGHT in N. Korea.
3. Say good night to Dear Leader.
---A report this week by US-based security and military analyst Stratfor predicts North Korea could return fire on Seoul with "several hundred thousand high-explosive rounds per hour" -- with up to 25 per cent of shells filled with nerve gas.---
Tactical nuclear weapons with precision guidance systems is all you need to know about our response. The North Korean army is a creature of mass formations. That stuff doesn't work any more.
You know...perhaps 50 years is long enough for SK to get its act together and take care of itself. If we need to leave a couple of carriers or a sub or two in the area just to make NK think twice before doing something stupid, fine. But I agree...get our guys out of there, but leave the SK's some tools behind to make the NK's think twice about crossing the DMZ.
I'm sure this is what we are telling the ChiComs. Get your bully boy under control or Taiwan, SK, and Japan are getting nukes.
Do you think that the soldiers firing artillery from fortified positions in the mountain side are going to just stop if a tactical nuke or two goes off 50 or 60 miles way?
Oh I've no doubt the NK forces would eventually break down and fall apart, but the level and scope of damage inflicted by then would still be horrific.
For that matter, North Korea's lack of stocks, food in particular, coupled with its extremely mountainous terrain means it is completely vulnerable to transporation infrastructure attack with precision-guided munitions. Dropping of a surprisingly small number of key bridges, blocking of key railroad and highway tunnels, and closing of ports with aerial-delivered naval mines, would cause NK to collapse in six weeks or less.
This report is flaming nonsense. It does not reflect any of what has happened in NK in the past 10-12 years.
This story has already been making the rounds like a hooker at a Teamster's Convention and can be summed up in one word:
BULLSH*T!
All we need are tactical battlefield Nukes and Nuke bunkerbusters. South Korea is rich and can afford to rebuild themselves. Once the smoke clears we help clean up and leave.
LLS
This is a good strategy - set the rationale now for using nukes. Not a single American wants to see US troops on the ground in North Korea.
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.