Trump Thread

[Greyblades]

Based upon the signs of increased lack of chinese influence over Kim that have been exhibited over the last year; I do not share your convictions on China's continued unconditional support. North korea is becoming a liability greater than a unified korea would present.

Thier millitary is increasingly outdated but thier nuclear capacity is likely to rise over the next decade; I see now as the last window to deal with this problem before retaliation becomes a magnitude more damaging, for all sides. As much as China will drag it's feet I do not think they are short sighted enough to let that window pass.

[spmetla]

I agree that China doesn't have as much support for North Korea as they did in the past, however their being as a liability isn't clear yet. The increased tensions haven't hurt China and instead have been used as a bargaining chip instead. They share a goal of wanting US-ROK wargames to cease as well as the US to depart the peninsula, a nuclear armed DPRK at least provides bargaining chips toward achieving that goal. The continuance of the status quo or any escalation of tension short of war only increases China's role as chief mediator and lynch pin for any peaceful solution for which untold concessions will be given. I don't see what liability DPRK actually provides to China short of getting into a real war.

Their military is increasingly outdated but this is mitigated largely by terrain. Unlike the Iraqis fighting in the desert the USAF can't bomb them to impotence, it would take a lot of close fighting at ranges dictated by terrain as well which negate the range advantage of many of our weapons systems. It would be a meatgrinder of a war at the start and would have massive ROK causalities followed by relatively heavy (by our standard) US causalities as our forces piecemeal into theater due to the lack of large nearby formations.

I will agree that this is the last window for the US to deal with it without nuclear missiles raining down on the US and territories (my state of Hawaii is supposedly in range as well). The best window was of course during the mid-90s but Clinton would never have started a war with the DPRK even for the legitimate humanitarian reasons that could have been created and the post-Tiananmen PRC would never have stood by and watched their ally destroyed.
If military force is the only option left then the time is very close indeed. The situation is like a light version of the cuban missile crisis (not quite to M.A.D. level yet). I don't have confidence however that our president could do the diplomatic work needed to put us in the right light in view of Russia, PRC, ROK, and Japan if were to embark on military strikes on nuclear and ballistic missile facilities. I hope that McMaster and Mattis force the type of foresight and planning required but it doesn't look like their advice is heeded by the POTUS very much.

I fear greatly that we might blunder our way into a war instead of actually preparing for one and using that state of preparedness to negotiate from a position of strength (the US Army is not prepared for war in Korea right now). Remember that Saddam thought that George W. was just playing hardball and wouldn't invade without explicit okay from the UNSC. Having more US forces in Korea would also force China to actually take us seriously. The danger that they think we're bluffing is very real given that in the past we've been the restraining influence to ROK's wanted revenge for all sorts of outright acts of war by the north.

[Montmorency]

I agree that China doesn't have as much support for North Korea as they did in the past, however their being as a liability isn't clear yet. The increased tensions haven't hurt China and instead have been used as a bargaining chip instead. They share a goal of wanting US-ROK wargames to cease as well as the US to depart the peninsula, a nuclear armed DPRK at least provides bargaining chips toward achieving that goal. The continuance of the status quo or any escalation of tension short of war only increases China's role as chief mediator and lynch pin for any peaceful solution for which untold concessions will be given. I don't see what liability DPRK actually provides to China short of getting into a real war.

Their military is increasingly outdated but this is mitigated largely by terrain. Unlike the Iraqis fighting in the desert the USAF can't bomb them to impotence, it would take a lot of close fighting at ranges dictated by terrain as well which negate the range advantage of many of our weapons systems. It would be a meatgrinder of a war at the start and would have massive ROK causalities followed by relatively heavy (by our standard) US causalities as our forces piecemeal into theater due to the lack of large nearby formations.

I will agree that this is the last window for the US to deal with it without nuclear missiles raining down on the US and territories (my state of Hawaii is supposedly in range as well). The best window was of course during the mid-90s but Clinton would never have started a war with the DPRK even for the legitimate humanitarian reasons that could have been created and the post-Tiananmen PRC would never have stood by and watched their ally destroyed.
If military force is the only option left then the time is very close indeed. The situation is like a light version of the cuban missile crisis (not quite to M.A.D. level yet). I don't have confidence however that our president could do the diplomatic work needed to put us in the right light in view of Russia, PRC, ROK, and Japan if were to embark on military strikes on nuclear and ballistic missile facilities. I hope that McMaster and Mattis force the type of foresight and planning required but it doesn't look like their advice is heeded by the POTUS very much.

I fear greatly that we might blunder our way into a war instead of actually preparing for one and using that state of preparedness to negotiate from a position of strength (the US Army is not prepared for war in Korea right now). Remember that Saddam thought that George W. was just playing hardball and wouldn't invade without explicit okay from the UNSC. Having more US forces in Korea would also force China to actually take us seriously. The danger that they think we're bluffing is very real given that in the past we've been the restraining influence to ROK's wanted revenge for all sorts of outright acts of war by the north.

As I mentioned in the other thread, the terrain works in US favor too, partly vis-a-vis simultaneous Chinese incursions, and partly with the understanding that forcing through the DPRK field armies to control of the coasts and the cities allows Coalition forces to confine the enemy to hillside bunkers, from which projection will not be possible for long.

From there, in other words, it's a matter of waiting for the final surrender without needless and risky offensive action to wipe out every last formation. The first week of conflict, or even the first 24 hours, is where the largest loss of life will occur for all parties.

But different scenarios do emerge depending on how pre-emptively Kim Jong Un acts against assembling forces, and how much of the total force the Americans can field in the earliest stages.

The Chinese would be in the best position if they could Trojan Horse an expeditionary force into occupying the country before the full outbreak of hostilities, under the guise of deterring/contributing against the US. That would be pretty anticlimactic, and contrary to US interests, but I suppose it would mean the least loss of life (other than the political executions among the DPRK elites).

[Gilrandir]

North Korea is an oversized bunker with human shields. Which makes it very difficult.

In August 1945 it didn't make Japan very difficult. For the US bombs.

[a completely inoffensive name]

In August 1945 it didn't make Japan very difficult. For the US bombs.

That's 100% incorrect.

[Husar]

We need North Korea's yin as the natural opposite to the USA's yang.
Destroying North Korea now would upset the balance and make us lose our moral compass. We might forget how yang Trump actually is.

[Idaho]

In August 1945 it didn't make Japan very difficult. For the US bombs.

So the way to deal with this crazy country who are developing a nuclear deterrent is to nuke them?

I wonder why they are developing this deterrent...

[Gilrandir]

That's 100% incorrect.

So the way to deal with this crazy country who are developing a nuclear deterrent is to nuke them?

My remark is to show that in 1945 the Allies brushed aside bunker/human shield considerations about Berlin and Hiroshima. Was it correct? Has anything changed since then?

[Pannonian]

My remark is to show that in 1945 the Allies brushed aside bunker/human shield considerations about Berlin and Hiroshima. Was it correct? Has anything changed since then?

Brushed aside? This is Total War you're talking about. Considerations only generally came on a reciprocal basis, else the victims were lucky to get anything. Germany and Japan would happily have used nuclear weapons on the Allies. Missiles were raining on SE England on a daily basis with zero regard for targeting, except for where the biggest concentrations of people are. Japan were even more indiscriminate.

[Greyblades]

I agree that China doesn't have as much support for North Korea as they did in the past, however their being as a liability isn't clear yet. The increased tensions haven't hurt China and instead have been used as a bargaining chip instead. They share a goal of wanting US-ROK wargames to cease as well as the US to depart the peninsula, a nuclear armed DPRK at least provides bargaining chips toward achieving that goal. The continuance of the status quo or any escalation of tension short of war only increases China's role as chief mediator and lynch pin for any peaceful solution for which untold concessions will be given. I don't see what liability DPRK actually provides to China short of getting into a real war.

Their military is increasingly outdated but this is mitigated largely by terrain. Unlike the Iraqis fighting in the desert the USAF can't bomb them to impotence, it would take a lot of close fighting at ranges dictated by terrain as well which negate the range advantage of many of our weapons systems. It would be a meatgrinder of a war at the start and would have massive ROK causalities followed by relatively heavy (by our standard) US causalities as our forces piecemeal into theater due to the lack of large nearby formations.

I will agree that this is the last window for the US to deal with it without nuclear missiles raining down on the US and territories (my state of Hawaii is supposedly in range as well). The best window was of course during the mid-90s but Clinton would never have started a war with the DPRK even for the legitimate humanitarian reasons that could have been created and the post-Tiananmen PRC would never have stood by and watched their ally destroyed.
If military force is the only option left then the time is very close indeed. The situation is like a light version of the cuban missile crisis (not quite to M.A.D. level yet). I don't have confidence however that our president could do the diplomatic work needed to put us in the right light in view of Russia, PRC, ROK, and Japan if were to embark on military strikes on nuclear and ballistic missile facilities. I hope that McMaster and Mattis force the type of foresight and planning required but it doesn't look like their advice is heeded by the POTUS very much.

I fear greatly that we might blunder our way into a war instead of actually preparing for one and using that state of preparedness to negotiate from a position of strength (the US Army is not prepared for war in Korea right now). Remember that Saddam thought that George W. was just playing hardball and wouldn't invade without explicit okay from the UNSC. Having more US forces in Korea would also force China to actually take us seriously. The danger that they think we're bluffing is very real given that in the past we've been the restraining influence to ROK's wanted revenge for all sorts of outright acts of war by the north.

I have suspected the desire to dispell ideas of american bluffing has been the main motivation behind trump's actions on syria.

I believe North Korea is a liability to china for one simple reason: kim jong-un is not cooperating.

While under Jong-il North Korea barked but heeled, it was a satistfactorial political tool, now the certainty that China can keep the mad dog under control is in doubt it's political value is diminished. Even now China hesitates to crack the whip, lest the whip fails and the political tool fails with it.

The way I see it, as amature as I admit my analysis may be, the key will be getting the south korean army to do the majority of the wetwork. American troops on the front line, or god forbid japanese, will only cement the individual north koreans reluctance to surrender. Any chance of a north korean rout will wither on the vine of it is the "hated white devils" chasing them.

Yes simply bombing the north into submission is out of the question but ensuring that the RoK cannot so much as take a step out of cover without being turned into red mist will give an undeniable advantage to the South.

America should secure the airspace, kill the navy, bomb what can be bombed and help the south do what it's ostensibly been preparing to do for 65 years.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Our media barely mentions the test and its implications. All of the focus is on Putin and Trump mano a mano.