Posted on 12/23/2002 10:59:27 AM PST by knak
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:35:20 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
WASHINGTON
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
From one person I know who was at Inchon: The Chinese were fine soldiers. The N Kors weren't.
In a strictly conventional war, I think they would suffer a defeat of Gulf War proportions. They are a teetering regime, ruling over a starving populace, with outdated soviet era hardware.
Of course the trump card (as it always is) is nukes, which we believe they have.
Political leaders are getting more insane every month. You wonder who is running the country when Rummy can spout out like this.
Totally agree!
There was a time the US military machine was geared to being able to fight two major conflicts in different parts of the globe, and win, however due to some cuts that started taking place after the fall of the Soviet block that ability has largely atrophied. Meaning that when it comes to fighting in an Iraq/N.Korea level simultaneously that the efficacy of such an act would not be prudent.
This is not to say that the US would not kick the collective @$$#$ of I-raq and N.Korea ....it just says that it would be a much harder fight than anticipated.
And when i say major conflict i am including a ground offensive. By this i mean US troops (army) actually getting into N.Korea just as they get into Baghdad. It would be relatively simple to send a carrier battlegroup into the Korean peninsula to attack N.Korea, while another is simultaneously attacking Iraq fromt he Indian ocean .......however the Bosnian campaign proved that air attacks alone cannot be relied on (in Bosnia NATO had said they had destroyed 'hundreds' of Tanks and myriads of bridges ....only to discover that they had been tricked into bombing microwave ovens that simulated radar sites, black sheets of plastic that simulated roads, log structures that seemed like bridges from a mile up, and less than 15 tanks were actually destroyed). Hence the need of a ground campaign.
And i do not think right now we are ready to ight two major conflicts at the same time. We woudl still win if we went ahead with it .....but the casualties and logistic problems would not be very pretty.
And while it would be very easy to send one of our 'Boomers' (strategic missile submarines) to launch a Trident SLBM at Pyongyang and nuke them that would never happen unless they struck first (and they are too clever to do that ....actually, looking at China, the experts who predict a Chinese attack on Taiwan in 2007-2008 say the Chinese will be diligent to ensure no nukes are used on their part, in effect making it hard for the US to use its nukes since we are currently too PC to do anything that woudl arouse the ire of the UN)
And talking of China if there was an armed US led invasion(actually let me just say US and UK because the only country that can be effectively relied upon to support us unselfishly is G.Britain) of N.Korea then that would be a great impetus of China to invade Taiwan! I know i said paradigms say they would wait until 2007 (when they have sufficient assymetrical stratagems to fend off the US from the Taiwan straits ....as long as they do not go nuclear) ...however why wait until 2007 when you can do so now? After all the US military will be over-taxed dealing with I-raq and N.Korea, meaning facing China would be one of the most injudicious decisions possible (unless of course we launch some Tridents .....which i seriously doubt would occur starting from the time Reagan stepped out of office onward). China would also try to do something to show that it is still relevant in the geo-political spectrum of that area ....and hence would find it hard to just sit on its laurels. I am not saying we would see hundreds of thousands Chinese conscripts streaming towards US GIs like we saw in the Korean war .....but the Chinese would do something ...maybe like gobbling up Taiwan like a tasty morsel (maybe not that easily ....but the end would be obviousl for Taiwan since it would only be a matter of time).
Hence i think the best thing to do is to tackle one objective at a time.
However i may be wrong on that since i also believe there are bigger threats than I-raq ............
And maybe, just maybe, Rumy and GW are un-PC enough to do more than wag tongues at N.Korea when they act as they have been acting in the future ....who knows, maybe rightnow there is a 'boomer' chilling deep in the Korean peninsula with a direct line (or direct orders since they are supposed to be quasi-independent) to the White House, and maybe if Pyongyang was to attack Seoul, or if Beijing was to attack Taipei, maybe serious action (read:Trident SLBMs) would be taken by us. However i would not be holding my breath for such an outcome ......
As for China i know for certain they would not go nuclear! Those guys are quite crafty ...and going nuke would not go well with their 50 year plans since the US would systematically eradicate their ability to do anything more than grow radioactive rice! Hence a Chi-com nuke strike is definitely out of the question unless someone gets possessed over there!
However i doubt Chona would accept a unified Korea since that would be a huge affront to them! They would do something, and maybe we would see some Chinese 'meddling' in the matter ...again not a rush of a million Chinese from across the border but definitelty something!
Maybe Taiwan.
And while such an action would not be sagacious for China (they are not ready yet) it would also throw a spanner in the works for the US in the region. War on terror, plus I-raq, plus N.Korea, and now a Chinese threat on Taiwan (who we have promised to back). And let us say that Japan is even threatened in the process (eg N.Korea was doing some missile tests, with one missile flying right over Japan).
It would be a gambit, and we might find ourselves unable to call their bluff and hence backing off. Note that Rumy emphasised there was no plan to attack N.Korea (which i have to say could mean anything from there is no plan to attack to a B-2B Spirits flying to drop JDAMs on N.Korean nuke facilities as we speak. I wish i had a crystal ball LOL)
However you never know .....maybe Rumy and co. are working on some amazing stratagem that will shock all of us (i am actually 100% certain they are working on something as we speak).
And that "adequate" figure is lower than most people think. The ROK military is a very good one, very focused on realistic training and preparation for war.
As for China i know for certain they would not go nuclear!
I concur.
However i doubt Chona would accept a unified Korea since that would be a huge affront to them!
The question is "what can they really do about it?"
They would do something, and maybe we would see some Chinese 'meddling' in the matter ...again not a rush of a million Chinese from across the border but definitelty something!
Too big a contingent invites the US to widen the war as they see fit. Too small a contingent, and the ROKs stuff and mount the PLA on the wall next to the NKPA.
Maybe Taiwan.
I'm dubious about that one. The ChiComs would have to be willing to risk losing ALL face if the amphibious adventure fails.
And while such an action would not be sagacious for China (they are not ready yet) it would also throw a spanner in the works for the US in the region. War on terror, plus I-raq, plus N.Korea, and now a Chinese threat on Taiwan (who we have promised to back). And let us say that Japan is even threatened in the process (eg N.Korea was doing some missile tests, with one missile flying right over Japan).
Yup. Annoy everyone around you, including the nations that control your access to the high seas.
I'm sure Hu Dis or Hu Dat or whatever his name is would look up from the PowerPoint slides and say "Comrades, this is the dumbest set of ideas I've heard, and I've heard lots of dumb ideas in my time."
It would be a gambit, and we might find ourselves unable to call their bluff and hence backing off.
Actually, we would simply call their bluff by ignoring them. They would either have to back down and admit it was a bluff, or throw the dice and hope they got extremely lucky.
36,000 soldiers stand guard to a weak Republic. Believe what you want.
Thanks...Seems good to see some intelligent thinking for a change.
Many things have changed since 1950. We could hold China because they had no nukes, just masses of humans. Now we can no longer play that hand as they have even larger masses and nuclear weapons to boot. NK also is in or on the nuclear edge. That leaves one poker hand we can no longer play, there is no ace in the hole.
When Clinton took office we had 18 army divisions, now we have 10. Bush is into the reserve and national guard to a great depth just to manage Iraq. That is not good.
We paid a great price in Korea in 1950 for our being unprepared, it would be an even greater price now. I lost many friends there as we took a licking from a small third world country and then we took another from a large country. Next time around, the price will be very heavy and perhaps not winable in conventional war.
What are they going to do to us with their nuke (if they ever build one) Fedex it to the White House?
Pentagon to abandon two-war strategy
Two-War Strategy Called Unrealistic
Rumsfeld seeks to scrap 'two-war' standard
Rumsfeld intends to urge Bush to drop 'two-war' strategy that Pentagon has held for past decade
They can reach Alaska. Flashmelt some tundra and blind a few moose and squirrels.
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.