Korea Thread: Liberal Moon Jae In Elected

[DontSayBanana]

Has Jared remade the Sword that was Broken already?

lulz; He went to Jared.

For everything.

[Razgovory]

I think Trump's would have a need for media victories, and may interfere by insisting on big scale objectives in such a way that could cause trouble - but I think by and large the US military would conduct the war as well as it could.

I think the main risk (for the US, in terms of being successful) is Korea turning into a grinder and the US continuing throwing resources at it for little gain and/ or the US breaking things in a way that can't be put together and ending up with bigger problems to deal with in the area rather than anything operational. I trust Trump significantly less than the already fairly low baseline of expectations when it comes to manage any sort of post-war situation whether it's nation building, managing potential terrorism, or any other facet (other than personal profiteering, natch).

I think there is very little risk of a Korean War turning into a grind. We don't fight wars that way anymore. PGMs are simply too effective, cheap, and our military doesn't even have the depth to "grind it out" anyway.

The biggest risk is just that NK will be able to do incredible damage to South Korea and Japan before we are able to neuter them.

We wouldn't be doing most of the fighting.  South Korea would.  A new Korean war would be like one of those Pacific battles in WW2, blasting suicidal fanatics out of bunkers in rough terrain.

[CountDeMoney]

One thing is for sure:  the American public would go into catatonic apoplexy.  This country has kittens and pisses away millions on congressional inquiries over a dozen deaths; imagine the civil panic that would result in hundreds of KIAs a day for weeks in a real fucking war.

[Habbaku]

I think you're way too optimistic in thinking the majority of the USA wouldn't get rock-fucking-hard over a new war under a Republican President.

[HVC]

I think you're way too optimistic in thinking the majority of the USA wouldn't get rock-fucking-hard over a new war under a Republican President.

You guys like to blow stuff up, but opinion turns hard once the caskets start coming in.

[HVC]

although it's harder to rhyme Trump than LBJ, so no cool 60's era chants. Probably have to settle for Hitler comparisons.

[CountDeMoney]

Oh, there would be some serious star spangled hard-ons for ZOMG A REAL WAR, but Americans coming back in body bags by the bushels--or even better, POWs for Nork propaganda--would temper that shit fast.

[The Brain]

I don't worry. Trump is a great leader in wartime. Tremendous.

[Eddie Teach]

although it's harder to rhyme Trump than LBJ, so no cool 60's era chants. Probably have to settle for Hitler comparisons.

Bump clump dump Gump hump frump grump jump lump mump pump plump rump slump stump

[OttoVonBismarck]

Oh, there would be some serious star spangled hard-ons for ZOMG A REAL WAR, but Americans coming back in body bags by the bushels--or even better, POWs for Nork propaganda--would temper that shit fast.

Yeah, anyone who wasn't alive and old enough to be politically engaged during Vietnam won't be prepared for the scope of casualties in North Korea. I do think NK would be neutered quickly then it'd morph in ways I can't predict, I don't think it'd bear a lot of similarities to say, Saddam's fall. But  we have a lot of guys, like thousands of guys, on bases that basically aren't going to be protected enough to not get blown to fuck by Nork missiles. I do think we moved our closest base to Seoul further south so we aren't in artillery range anymore, but the simple reality is we could very easily lose 4-5,000 soldiers in a month in North Korea. It likely won't stay at that clip because modern wars just chew up conventional armies very quickly, usually one side's conventional military just won't have the gas to go long term. But the damage Kim can do and the number of American soldiers he can absolutely kill before he dies is way, way higher than Saddam's capacities were.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Casualties in Seoul will be extreme, too. I think most believe that even if we quieted the North's guns within the first hour, you'd still have 5-7,000 dead. If they were able to keep hitting Seoul for a day I've seen it estimated at 80,000-90,000 dead, although I'm not sure how realistic that scenario is. And of course Kim does have at least a few actual nukes, and I think there's almost no chance unless by sheer luck we happen to hit one in a bombing run, that he doesn't detonate them in a full out war.

[The Brain]

Kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down. The boys will be home before the ratings fall.

[Jacob]

I think there is very little risk of a Korean War turning into a grind. We don't fight wars that way anymore. PGMs are simply too effective, cheap, and our military doesn't even have the depth to "grind it out" anyway.

The biggest risk is just that NK will be able to do incredible damage to South Korea and Japan before we are able to neuter them.

Depends what we mean by "grind". Maybe an "Occupation of Iraq" type scenario with a steady stream of casualties and expenditure of treasure is not a proper grind, but I don't think it's a particularly good case either.

I do expect that a war with North Korea will eventually result in a substantial number of boots on the grounds in North Korea, and if they're American boots then I expect there to be a steady stream of casualties unless Americans get greeted as liberators by a grateful population.

What are the scenarios really?

At first, of course, the US will use all the planes and missiles to blow the everloving shit out of the North Korean forces, but at some point someone's going to have to go in and clean up and organize a new regime. I guess it'll either be South Koreans, Chinese, or Americans... but if the Americans do all the bombing, I expect they'll want to have a say in what happens next - and having a say will require troops, I figure.

[Jacob]

We wouldn't be doing most of the fighting.  South Korea would.  A new Korean war would be like one of those Pacific battles in WW2, blasting suicidal fanatics out of bunkers in rough terrain.

Are we sure that South Korea, with its conscript army, has the appetite for sustained mountain warfare and occupation of a country they consider family?

[CountDeMoney]

Just because I didn't want to retype it all

I've always wondered what the ROK and US Forces Korea's contingency plans were for that situation. In fact I've sometimes wondered, since it's been like this for decades, if maybe Seoul should have been basically abandoned gradually despite the massive costs of doing so. Its close proximity to the North has basically always meant the North has in its pocket the ability to wipe out South Korea's biggest, most important city in any war.

My old college roommate was stationed for three years in South Korea north of Seoul as an MLRS company commander in the '90s, around the time that NK sub got beached and they searched for the crew for days;  he always said they expected to lose Seoul and get pocketed by the offensive that far north.  They'd try to preposition their batteries in the mountains where they maintain their munitions, to roll in and out of their bunkers for fire missions, but their units expected to be cut off in large swathes between the NKs and the refugees, and figured they'd have to hold out on their own as long as possible.

That's why his BC bought an old M113 from the ROKs and welded two bulldozer scoops to the front as a cattle catcher;  to plow through everybody when it was time to haul ass.

The only thing about the NK's prepositioned arty and SSM batteries is that the ROKs pretty much know where it all is, and are as dialed in to their locations as the NK is on Seoul.  City would pretty much be stop being a city in the first 48 hours, though.