- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: War with North Korea - The First 72 Hours
Posted on 4/13/17 at 9:29 am to StraightCashHomey21
Posted on 4/13/17 at 9:29 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
Yea they tell everyone stationed or on rotation to Korea you are a buffer until the rest of Pacific commands forces can arrive. NK will stretch their lines with an all out attack and make it a logistical nightmare to keep the fight going. Cut off their lines and box them in.
Air assets and 40k troops can only hold a million man military for so long.
You realize we can fly non stop sorties and bombardments, right? A million man standing army doesn't mean shite if you don't have an air force worth a shite to back them up.
If they decided to line the border, it's basically an open invitation for them to be killed in a group.
Again, this ain't colonial times. Standing army doesn't mean shite compared to Air Force, Navy, and Spec Ops.
4
Posted on 4/13/17 at 9:30 am to Lakeboy7
quote:Bye.
Ok, I'm out.
Posted on 4/13/17 at 9:33 am to LSURussian
quote:
The carrier fleet has already arrived. It would be a bigger slaughter on the ground than the Iraqi war when Iraqi troops were trying to surrender to CNN camera crews....
You still have to rearm and refuel
You can't have all air assets on station in the air at once.
Posted on 4/13/17 at 9:34 am to BugAC
quote:
You realize we can fly non stop sorties and bombardments, right? A million man standing army doesn't mean shite if you don't have an air force worth a shite to back them up. If they decided to line the border, it's basically an open invitation for them to be killed in a group. Again, this ain't colonial times. Standing army doesn't mean shite compared to Air Force, Navy, and Spec Ops.
You still have to rearm them and refuel them. You can't have all air assets on station at once.
You guys watch too many movies and play way too many video games.
This post was edited on 4/13/17 at 9:37 am
Posted on 4/13/17 at 9:44 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:Don't need to. Knocking out a few bridges in the mountains between NK and Seoul stops any ground army dead in their tracks. The NK forces would have to funnel their forces towards the southwest of the mountain ranges closer to the sea just to access Seoul.
You still have to rearm and refuel
You can't have all air assets on station in the air at once.
It would be a turkey shoot and the NK army would be the turkeys.
This post was edited on 4/13/17 at 9:46 am
Posted on 4/13/17 at 9:46 am to LSURussian
quote:
Don't need to. Knocking out a few bridges in the mountains between NK and Seoul stops any ground army dead in their tracks. The NK forces would have funnel southwest of the mountain ranges closer to the sea just to access Seoul. It would be a turkey shoot and the NK army would be the turkeys.
You would have to take out their assets pointed south first, which would take a large coordinated and continuing strike.
Posted on 4/13/17 at 9:50 am to BugAC
quote:It's amazing how much more optimistic you guys are than the goddamned CONPLAN.
You realize we can fly non stop sorties and bombardments, right? A million man standing army doesn't mean shite if you don't have an air force worth a shite to back them up.
If they decided to line the border, it's basically an open invitation for them to be killed in a group.
Again, this ain't colonial times. Standing army doesn't mean shite compared to Air Force, Navy, and Spec Ops.
Posted on 4/13/17 at 9:53 am to TheFonz
It would be a Seoul crushing experience for sure
Posted on 4/13/17 at 9:56 am to BugAC
quote:It takes time to get those planes over there. It's not as if there's a magic button we push and thousands of fighter jets suddenly appear over the DMZ.
You realize we can fly non stop sorties and bombardments, right? A million man standing army doesn't mean shite if you don't have an air force worth a shite to back them up.
Posted on 4/13/17 at 9:58 am to okietiger13
quote:
What about the Rod of God? Is that thing just a rumor or is it operational enough that we could send several of them at the DPRK offensive positions?
Anyone?
Posted on 4/13/17 at 9:58 am to Navytiger74
quote:How else can the military keep getting more funding?
It's amazing how much more optimistic you guys are than the goddamned CONPLAN.
Posted on 4/13/17 at 9:58 am to Navytiger74
I think a big factor would be whether NK chooses to use it's artillery to inflict as much damage on Seoul as he possibly can as some sort of statement or if he chooses to use it against ROK and US Army positions.
Posted on 4/13/17 at 9:59 am to LSURussian
Aren't you a retired banker? Keep posting by all means but at least qualify your opinions by telling the group you don't have a fricking clue as to what you are talking about.
Posted on 4/13/17 at 10:00 am to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
It takes time to get those planes over there. It's not as if there's a magic button we push and thousands of fighter jets suddenly appear over the DMZ.
but but on COD I called in endless air strikes
Posted on 4/13/17 at 10:04 am to TheFonz
Happened 67 years ago.
It has been fairly quiet over the last 64 years.
It has been fairly quiet over the last 64 years.
This post was edited on 4/13/17 at 10:05 am
Posted on 4/13/17 at 10:05 am to LSURussian
quote:It's one strike group. Not a fleet. And DPRK has an IADS that would need to be defeated before we "established air superiority" and bombed their positions at will. Now precisely what that timeline looks like isn't in my wheelhouse, but it wouldn't be instantaneous.
The carrier fleet has already arrived.
quote:Different scenarios entirely.
It would be a bigger slaughter on the ground than the Iraqi war when Iraqi troops were trying to surrender to CNN camera crews....
Posted on 4/13/17 at 10:06 am to BugAC
Spec Ops troops are nice but relatively as useless as teats on a boar hog against a large, dug in, and aware opponent. Seals and Rangers are great elite light infantry but they run won't out there and whip an armored division. This is not shooting insurgents in some dusty Iraqi town in a surprise attack, its a large scale conventional war.
This would not be like the first Gulf War where Saddam cheerfully put his army out in a desert devoid of cover and then left them there for a month of bombing before we started the dance. The bulk of the North Korean army is dug in mountainous terrain and a short walk away from South Korean and American lines. Unless you liberally use nukes or chemical weapons right off the bat they will be on top of us in minutes... not hours or days.
So NK, if they get the chance, launches a massive assault backed up by more artillery (all dug into the mountains) then you can shake a stick at. SK and American forces on the DMZ exact a heavy price... and more then likely are gone within the first day of the war. Yep, there is a very good chance the US military loses an entire infantry division for all intents in purposes on the first day.
Meanwhile NK, starts the mother of all bombardments against one of the most populated cities in the world. They may or may not have the capability to pop a nuke on Seoul but the NK can sure as hell drop enough chemical ordinance on it to kill an unholy amount of people. Its ten million people living in a fairly dense area. Just dropping conventional rockets alone will kill tens of thousands if not more.
The first 72 hours would be bloody as hell. After that the massive South Korean military would be fully mobilized, the Marines from Okinawa would have landed and most of the AF would be camped there. It turns into a slaughter for North Korean troops and the question is how long would the march to Pyongyang take and whether or not China would intervene to establish a border zone in North Korea to control the flood of refugees.
So we would win, that is not really in question. We would lose a lot of people doing it but we'd kill a vastly larger number of North Koreans in the process.
The only way to mitigate this would be launch a massive preemptive strike to "freeze" as much of the North Korean army in place as we can and hope that they don't level too much of Seoul before we can degrade their artillery assets.
If you are so confident that a war against North Korea can be won with only a few hundred casualties might I suggest that there are daily flights to Seoul and you can feel fry to prove your point by going and camping out in the northern suburbs... where I am sure you would be safe as can be if a war broke out.
This would not be like the first Gulf War where Saddam cheerfully put his army out in a desert devoid of cover and then left them there for a month of bombing before we started the dance. The bulk of the North Korean army is dug in mountainous terrain and a short walk away from South Korean and American lines. Unless you liberally use nukes or chemical weapons right off the bat they will be on top of us in minutes... not hours or days.
So NK, if they get the chance, launches a massive assault backed up by more artillery (all dug into the mountains) then you can shake a stick at. SK and American forces on the DMZ exact a heavy price... and more then likely are gone within the first day of the war. Yep, there is a very good chance the US military loses an entire infantry division for all intents in purposes on the first day.
Meanwhile NK, starts the mother of all bombardments against one of the most populated cities in the world. They may or may not have the capability to pop a nuke on Seoul but the NK can sure as hell drop enough chemical ordinance on it to kill an unholy amount of people. Its ten million people living in a fairly dense area. Just dropping conventional rockets alone will kill tens of thousands if not more.
The first 72 hours would be bloody as hell. After that the massive South Korean military would be fully mobilized, the Marines from Okinawa would have landed and most of the AF would be camped there. It turns into a slaughter for North Korean troops and the question is how long would the march to Pyongyang take and whether or not China would intervene to establish a border zone in North Korea to control the flood of refugees.
So we would win, that is not really in question. We would lose a lot of people doing it but we'd kill a vastly larger number of North Koreans in the process.
The only way to mitigate this would be launch a massive preemptive strike to "freeze" as much of the North Korean army in place as we can and hope that they don't level too much of Seoul before we can degrade their artillery assets.
If you are so confident that a war against North Korea can be won with only a few hundred casualties might I suggest that there are daily flights to Seoul and you can feel fry to prove your point by going and camping out in the northern suburbs... where I am sure you would be safe as can be if a war broke out.
Posted on 4/13/17 at 10:08 am to LSURussian
quote:In this country? They just have to ask. Americans worship the military.
How else can the military keep getting more funding?
Plans aren't really drawn up with an eye toward the appropriations process. They need to be realistic because they actually have to work when it comes down to it.
Posted on 4/13/17 at 10:09 am to okietiger13
quote:
What about the Rod of God? Is that thing just a rumor or is it operational enough that we could send several of them at the DPRK offensive positions?
Are you serious?
Posted on 4/13/17 at 10:11 am to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:I think their plans pretty much call for the bombardment of Seoul at the outset. At least they did the last time we had an idea. And as mentioned, once they'd cleared the anti-personnel mines and other obstructions along the DMZ, our forces simply wouldn't be enough of an obstacle to prevent any push into South Korea. And I'm not a land guy (at all), but I'm assuming the proximity of their initial FLOT to ours would limit the utility of artillery bombardment of our positions. Probably also limit, to some degree, our ability to support from the air.
I think a big factor would be whether NK chooses to use it's artillery to inflict as much damage on Seoul as he possibly can as some sort of statement or if he chooses to use it against ROK and US Army positions.
Page 5 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News