Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

My point is they've been trying since before he was even elected, so until they actually START the impeachment process, it's just wind. Once they actually have the process legitimately started and not just more Yahoo hit piece articles, THEN I will take it seriously. And once again, I fall back to what will Pence do once Trump is gone. Pence seems MUCH more level headed than Trump, and won't be as antagonistic towards NK. However, I don't think he'd just wimp out if NK got hostile or started to legitimately target our assets or territories.

KTG17 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
But not if Americans kill Chinese troops?

I am saying that if the Chinese strike the American's first, it will galvanize Americans behind a war not seen since the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.

When America slashes back and kills Chinese in return, I expect that to galvanize the Chinese too. I never said that it wouldn't.

What I am saying is you are going to see a different level of commitment and support from the American people if another country 'attacks' us.

Just no, in the Korean War the Chinese struck first too. It had no real effect. If China enters an ongoing war after repeated warnings how would it be like Pearl Harbor? Yeah it might piss some people off but most who keep themselves imformed know that the possibility exists. Still though, public support was at a highpoint after 9/11, how long did that take to subside once the endless occupation became a realistic possibility, with bodies coming back and money pouring out for little progress? We have seen this level of conmitment not two decades ago, we have also seen how little it relatively takes to have people turn on it.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

Yeah though China did also warn NK too in one statement. If they start the war. Or fore thr first missile then they do not get protected from the US and are on there own.

Aye, the Chinese have made their position perfectly clear. If North Korea attacks anyone and starts a war, they are on their own and the US can do whatever it wants to them. But if the US or anyone else attacks North Korea first, then China will get a bit angry.
It is a smart move from the Chinese, aimed to ensure that there will be no war. North Korea won't dare to attack or start a war without Chinese back-up, and South Korea and the US don't want to attack North Korea or start a war if it gets them in trouble with China. Ergo no war, yay!

Neat way indeed.
It warns NK and comity to treaty at same time.

Perfect balence for China.
Also fits modern situation, China does not hav as good relations with the 3rd Kim. So more Stern attitude is expected.

 Just Tony wrote:
My point is they've been trying since before he was even elected, so until they actually START the impeachment process, it's just wind.

Who's they? Democrats? The House and Senate committees they hold minority positions on have been pretty ineffectual. The work with real substance has come from the FBI, who are not political.

And once again, I fall back to what will Pence do once Trump is gone. Pence seems MUCH more level headed than Trump, and won't be as antagonistic towards NK.

If you'd been following the news of the investigation, you'd know that while its far from certain how this will play out, if Trump does get impeached then Pence probably will be as well.

However, I don't think he'd just wimp out if NK got hostile or started to legitimately target our assets or territories.

Any US president would react strongly if US territory was targeted.

 sebster wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
My point is they've been trying since before he was even elected, so until they actually START the impeachment process, it's just wind.

Who's they? Democrats? The House and Senate committees they hold minority positions on have been pretty ineffectual. The work with real substance has come from the FBI, who are not political.

And once again, I fall back to what will Pence do once Trump is gone. Pence seems MUCH more level headed than Trump, and won't be as antagonistic towards NK.

If you'd been following the news of the investigation, you'd know that while its far from certain how this will play out, if Trump does get impeached then Pence probably will be as well.

However, I don't think he'd just wimp out if NK got hostile or started to legitimately target our assets or territories.

Any US president would react strongly if US territory was targeted.

If US Territory, bases or ships are attacked they have no choice but to combat operations or strong diplomatic and economic measures against them.

 jhe90 wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
My point is they've been trying since before he was even elected, so until they actually START the impeachment process, it's just wind.

Who's they? Democrats? The House and Senate committees they hold minority positions on have been pretty ineffectual. The work with real substance has come from the FBI, who are not political.

And once again, I fall back to what will Pence do once Trump is gone. Pence seems MUCH more level headed than Trump, and won't be as antagonistic towards NK.

If you'd been following the news of the investigation, you'd know that while its far from certain how this will play out, if Trump does get impeached then Pence probably will be as well.

However, I don't think he'd just wimp out if NK got hostile or started to legitimately target our assets or territories.

Any US president would react strongly if US territory was targeted.

If US Territory, bases or ships are attacked they have no choice but to combat operations or strong diplomatic and economic measures against them.

Which is exactly why Kim would never be so stupid. The idea that NK would purposefully make the first move in an actual war is a bit ludicrous, its just NK being provocative and pounding its own chest pretending. Kim might as well shoot himself to save everyone some time if attacking the US is really a consideration of his. The reason behind the latest issue is the development of nuclear weapons out of self preservation.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

A late friend of mine was at Chosin. China most definitely won, and forced one of the longest retreats in the history of the US military, driving the US and UN forces south of the 38th. So, let's not bs ourselves, if anyone 'won' in Korea, it was China.

Time out. This is an incorrect statement. First of all, you can't judge a war on a single battle. Second, the Korean war was started when the North invaded the south. The US got involved to remove the north from the south, which it did. Where it screwed up was believing an arrogant McArthur in the the Chinese would stay out of the war. Since McArthur wasn't prepared to fight them, they had to retreat to South Korea.

The Chinese launched several major offensives that ended in failure too btw.

The war ended with the North Koreans out of South Korea, which is exactly what the US had gone to war to do. Don't see how ANYONE can say the US lost the war. If you want to argue that it ended in a stalemate, that's fine too. The Chinese didn't want the US in the North, but also couldn't drive them out of the South (which they certainly tried to do too), and the US wouldn't commit to expanding the war enough to now remove the Chinese from North Korea, since the original mandate was to just remove NK out of SK.

People, you have to read some books.

KTG17 wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

A late friend of mine was at Chosin. China most definitely won, and forced one of the longest retreats in the history of the US military, driving the US and UN forces south of the 38th. So, let's not bs ourselves, if anyone 'won' in Korea, it was China.

Time out. This is an incorrect statement. First of all, you can't judge a war on a single battle. Second, the Korean war was started when the North invaded the south. The US got involved to remove the north from the south, which it did. Where it screwed up was believing an arrogant McArthur in the the Chinese would stay out of the war. Since McArthur wasn't prepared to fight them, they had to retreat to South Korea.

The Chinese launched several major offensives that ended in failure too btw.

The war ended with the North Koreans out of South Korea, which is exactly what the US had gone to war to do. Don't see how ANYONE can say the US lost the war. If you want to argue that it ended in a stalemate, that's fine too. The Chinese didn't want the US in the North, but also couldn't drive them out of the South (which they certainly tried to do too), and the US wouldn't commit to expanding the war enough to now remove the Chinese from North Korea, since the original mandate was to just remove NK out of SK.

People, you have to read some books.

Also post WW2.
?People saw reason to support that war but things had been pretty rough even in US.

People would not have liked another multi year ear dragging on ans on for years and many many lives.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Just no, in the Korean War the Chinese struck first too. It had no real effect. If China enters an ongoing war after repeated warnings how would it be like Pearl Harbor? Yeah it might piss some people off but most who keep themselves imformed know that the possibility exists. Still though, public support was at a highpoint after 9/11, how long did that take to subside once the endless occupation became a realistic possibility, with bodies coming back and money pouring out for little progress? We have seen this level of conmitment not two decades ago, we have also seen how little it relatively takes to have people turn on it.

I am saying the US will fight the Chinese in such a way that the US fought the Japanese. The Japanese had an expansive empire in Asia. They had assets all over the place. Did the US just go right for Japan? No. They took out its navy, captured it islands, and broke up their military in pieces as the war went on. The same would happen in the South China sea. What military is going to allow aircraft and ships to operate from remote bases from behind them?

Keep in mind that the Korea war took place a few years after the greatest war in history, and we have nothing like that going on now. Whatever wars the US has been fighting or helping to fight in limited capacity the last 15 years is nothing compared to what will be involved in a war with China. It will galvanize the US, I can assure you.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Which is exactly why Kim would never be so stupid. The idea that NK would purposefully make the first move in an actual war is a bit ludicrous, its just NK being provocative and pounding its own chest pretending.

I agree with this. Unfortunately, most in the US Government see NK was their biggest threat. A couple of years ago I attended a dinner with this guy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_R._Hill

And some asked him who he thought the greatest threat to the US was, and he even mentioned it was Kim. So this issue just didn't pop its head now, its been brewing for years. And every step of the way since Clinton, the US has tried the carrot approach to stop NK from developing the bomb, then miniaturizing it, then making a missile that could reach the US, then putting a bomb on it, and it has failed EVERY step of the way. If the US has decided this is not an option it can live with, and carrots, sanctions, China, and everything else hasn't worked, what else is it going to do? If I hear 'more diplomacy' then its from people that haven't been paying attention. And this is why you keep hearing the drum beats to the march of war. We didn't hear these a few years ago. We are coming to the point of no return.

And if you things are difficult now, imagine how much easier it was lets say 20 years ago. Before we were just worried about artillery hitting Seoul. Then it was a nuke. Now its a single missile. Imagine how its going to be if they have 50 of said missiles? So, yes, something is going to happen, since nothing else has worked.

KTG17 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Just no, in the Korean War the Chinese struck first too. It had no real effect. If China enters an ongoing war after repeated warnings how would it be like Pearl Harbor? Yeah it might piss some people off but most who keep themselves imformed know that the possibility exists. Still though, public support was at a highpoint after 9/11, how long did that take to subside once the endless occupation became a realistic possibility, with bodies coming back and money pouring out for little progress? We have seen this level of conmitment not two decades ago, we have also seen how little it relatively takes to have people turn on it.

I am saying the US will fight the Chinese in such a way that the US fought the Japanese. The Japanese had an expansive empire in Asia. They had assets all over the place. Did the US just go right for Japan? No. They took out its navy, captured it islands, and broke up their military in pieces as the war went on. The same would happen in the South China sea. What military is going to allow aircraft and ships to operate from remote bases from behind them?

Keep in mind that the Korea war took place a few years after the greatest war in history, and we have nothing like that going on now. Whatever wars the US has been fighting or helping to fight in limited capacity the last 15 years is nothing compared to what will be involved in a war with China. It will galvanize the US, I can assure you.

Wait, the US is going to drop two nuclear bombs on China? Your comparison doesn't work because we already had the Korean War in which China attacked the US and nothing of what you said actually happened. There is no reason to assume both countries will want to escalate it beyond the Korean peninsula this time because its incredibly risky. And yes, maybe it will galvanize the US, but didn't 9/11 do exactly that too? I'm not saying your overall conclusion is wrong on how a potential full-scale war is likely going to go, I just don't agree with the Pearl Harbor and necessary escalation parallel based on previous history and current circumstances.

 sebster wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Well, if you are so determined to live in your own star-and-stripe filled fantasy world, I don't think I will be able to stop you.

Dude, you claimed China beat the US in Korea, and that CHina losing trade with the US wouldn't impact them much. You really need to look at your own fantasy world first.

Dear Seb, let me explain to you the meaning of fantasy. Fantasy is something that is not real. China beating the US in Korea was very real, the Chinese kicked the US all the way back to the 38th Parallel, after which the US got its act together again and prevented further losses, but it was unable to re-take most of the territory it lost. The Chinese succeeded in their goal of saving North Korea. The US did not succeed in its goal to defeat North Korea (though it did succeed in its goal of saving South Korea, so the ultimate result of the war was a stalemate). The Chinese successfully frustrated US war goals while achieving their own. That is 'beating' by the definition of the word:

Verb
beat (third-person singular simple present beats, present participle beating, simple past beat, past participle beaten or beat)
5. (transitive) To win against; to defeat or overcome; to do better than, outdo, or excel (someone) in a particular, competitive event.
Jan had little trouble beating John in tennis. He lost five games in a row.
No matter how quickly Joe finished his test, Roger always beat him.
I just can't seem to beat the last level of this video game.

I also never claimed that the loss of trade with the US wouldn't impact China much. I have repeatedly stated that it would hurt China massively, and that it is one of the reasons China will go a long way to avoid war with the US. What I did dispute is that the loss of trade would completely destroy China, and the idea that economy is the biggest motivator that drives Chinese foreign policy (it isn't).

 sebster wrote:
You have absolutely no clue how warfare has changed. Modern war is brutal and insanely fast. One way or another military dominance is established in days. The only way it can reach stalemate now is if the defeated force manages to go to ground and fight a sustained guerilla war of attrition, a strategy that would make zero sense for two major powers fighting in another country.

Oh dear. I don't even know how to respond to that. I didn't know the stalemate in Ukraine was an illusion? And modern warfare is so insanely fast, the war in Syria has only been going on for 6 years? Modern warfare can be over quickly, yes, but it can also drag on for very long. It depends on how the war plays out. In that sense, nothing has changed in warfare. Medieval wars too could be over in a matter or weeks, or they could drag on for a hundred years. Modern warfare is much more mobile and fluid than war in the past, but a war as a whole is not necessarily faster. Modern warfare still is decided by taking and holding territory, which ultimately can only be done by infantry. And it can take a long time to clear a city of hostile infantry. And when both sides can sent in reinforcements, or when both sides are roughly evenly matched, well. Wars can drag on for a long time.

Also, just because soldiers fight for in a conventional army doesn't mean they are not going to be using guerilla tactics if it gives them a better fighting chance. Especially if one side were to get beaten in conventional warfare, they could switch over to guerilla warfare and win in that way. The North Vietnamese army did this very effectively in the Vietnam War.

 sebster wrote:

China doesn't have much in the way of global holdings. Sure, there is plenty of Chinese-owned businesses and such, but outside of the US the US would have trouble seizing anything.

So they don't have many global holdings, except for the roughly $10tn in global holdings they have. Gotcha. And the idea that the US would be unable to ensure Chinese assets outside of the US is bonkers for two reasons. First is you're trying to talk about a few trillion in the US as if that weren't much to worry about. Second is most of the rest of the holdings are in countries with strong security ties to the US. Hypothetically, if the US does some incredibly stupid stuff in the next couple of years culminating in an overt war of aggression in NK which China responds to by defending NK, then maybe Europe opts to stay out, maybe. But anything close to a neutral situation and Europe sides with the US, and freezes those Chinese assets.

No way. Europe likes Chinese money way better than it likes pointless US wars in which European countries have nothing to gain. Europe has strong ties to the US, and we will probably come to the aid of the US if it is attacked. But I don't think any European country would assist the US if it attacks North Korea and gets itself into a war with China. If any Dutch or German government decided to get involved, well that would be political suicide for them (and I imagine that goes for most other Western European countries as well). Europeans aren't very fond of war, and they will like it even less if that war would bring major damage to their economic prosperity. Europe has no obligations to assist the US in attacks, and they would stay neutral. Well, maybe I could see the British joining in. I don't know enough about countries like Canada and Australia to comment on them, but continental Europe? Forget it.

KTG17 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Which is exactly why Kim would never be so stupid. The idea that NK would purposefully make the first move in an actual war is a bit ludicrous, its just NK being provocative and pounding its own chest pretending.

I agree with this. Unfortunately, most in the US Government see NK was their biggest threat. A couple of years ago I attended a dinner with this guy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_R._Hill

And some asked him who he thought the greatest threat to the US was, and he even mentioned it was Kim. So this issue just didn't pop its head now, its been brewing for years. And every step of the way since Clinton, the US has tried the carrot approach to stop NK from developing the bomb, then miniaturizing it, then making a missile that could reach the US, then putting a bomb on it, and it has failed EVERY step of the way. If the US has decided this is not an option it can live with, and carrots, sanctions, China, and everything else hasn't worked, what else is it going to do? If I hear 'more diplomacy' then its from people that haven't been paying attention. And this is why you keep hearing the drum beats to the march of war. We didn't hear these a few years ago. We are coming to the point of no return.

And if you things are difficult now, imagine how much easier it was lets say 20 years ago. Before we were just worried about artillery hitting Seoul. Then it was a nuke. Now its a single missile. Imagine how its going to be if they have 50 of said missiles? So, yes, something is going to happen, since nothing else has worked.

Yeah I get the reasoning behind why NK is the 'greatest' threat (of course not actual greatest, but just the biggest problem of this time). The problem with NK is that the US doesn't want to go to war, SK certainly doesn't which complicates things further. Even Trump has been in office for almost a year and no preparation has been made in the face of a ticking clock. To be realistic, I think its already crossed the point of no return, even if NK isn't yet a threat to the US it is to two major regional allies. The drums of war have been beaten every few years but nothing ever happens. I don't think something can still be done militarily speaking as the cost is so prohibitive. Plus MAD still applies even to NK. We just have to come to terms with a nuclear North Korea.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Wait, the US is going to drop two nuclear bombs on China? Your comparison doesn't work because we already had the Korean War in which China attacked the US and nothing of what you said actually happened. There is no reason to assume both countries will want to escalate it beyond the Korean peninsula this time because its incredibly risky. And yes, maybe it will galvanize the US, but didn't 9/11 do exactly that too? I'm not saying your overall conclusion is wrong on how a potential full-scale war is likely going to go, I just don't agree with the Pearl Harbor and necessary escalation parallel based on previous history and current circumstances.

Its getting to the point where I am beginning to think that you either are blind, or unable to follow a train of thought. There is also a lot you don't see to know about the US. I don't have a lot of time to explain it or go into details, but what is worse, I feel like if I did, you are going to keep falling back onto the same argument, which is going to waste my time.

So here we go: you got me. Here's what you have convinced me of what will happen. The US will attack NK, China will attack US forces, and the US will pack its bag and go home.

KTG17 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Wait, the US is going to drop two nuclear bombs on China? Your comparison doesn't work because we already had the Korean War in which China attacked the US and nothing of what you said actually happened. There is no reason to assume both countries will want to escalate it beyond the Korean peninsula this time because its incredibly risky. And yes, maybe it will galvanize the US, but didn't 9/11 do exactly that too? I'm not saying your overall conclusion is wrong on how a potential full-scale war is likely going to go, I just don't agree with the Pearl Harbor and necessary escalation parallel based on previous history and current circumstances.

Its getting to the point where I am beginning to think that you either are blind, or unable to follow a train of thought. There is also a lot you don't see to know about the US. I don't have a lot of time to explain it or go into details, but what is worse, I feel like if I did, you are going to keep falling back onto the same argument, which is going to waste my time.

So here we go: you got me. Here's what you have convinced me of what will happen. The US will attack NK, China will attack US forces, and the US will pack its bag and go home.

That's very nice... I know plenty about the US and seemingly more about Chinese motivations which you keep ignoring. Your comparison to the war with Japan holds no merit because we actually had a Korean War with the US and China involved to compare things to. I'm not saying the US will go home. I'm saying the US will focus on the Korean peninsula so as not to risk escalation to a full scale war with China. The US can win Korea with some effort involved and not going balls to the wall against everything Chinese leaves room for a political resolution with China while doing as little economic damage to the US as possible. China will certainly restrain itself as a wider war isn't in its own interest, but neither is it in the interest of the US if it can be kept contained. In the end a limited war is much preferable looking at costs involved.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
That's very nice... I know plenty about the US and seemingly more about Chinese motivations which you keep ignoring. Your comparison to the war with Japan holds no merit because we actually had a Korean War with the US and China involved to compare things to. I'm not saying the US will go home. I'm saying the US will focus on the Korean peninsula so as not to risk escalation to a full scale war with China. The US can win Korea with some effort involved and not going balls to the wall against everything Chinese leaves room for a political resolution with China while doing as little economic damage to the US as possible. China will certainly restrain itself as a wider war isn't in its own interest, but neither is it in the interest of the US if it can be kept contained. In the end a limited war is much preferable looking at costs involved.

So you are arguing that US Forces will expose its rear and flanks to the Chinese Navy and Air Force operating from the South China sea?

What inept fool can we appoint to lead our forces with a strategy like that?

In the 1950s China had neither an air force, nor navy, let alone overseas assets to operate from. If you think the US isn't going to go about destroying any threat to its movement on the seas, especially if China attacks the US first, you are out of your mind. And never once did I say that the US would invade the Chinese mainland. I am saying the Chinese getting involved would be at the cost of losing everything outside their mainland.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
No way. Europe likes Chinese money way better than it likes pointless US wars

Lol well until the Chinese start guaranteeing the security of Europe, stationing troops there, and footing most of the bill for NATO, they will fall in line and support the US in some capacity.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Well, if you are so determined to live in your own star-and-stripe filled fantasy world, I don't think I will be able to stop you.

Dude, you claimed China beat the US in Korea, and that CHina losing trade with the US wouldn't impact them much. You really need to look at your own fantasy world first.

Dear Seb, let me explain to you the meaning of fantasy. Fantasy is something that is not real. China beating the US in Korea was very real, the Chinese kicked the US all the way back to the 38th Parallel, after which the US got its act together again and prevented further losses, but it was unable to re-take most of the territory it lost. The Chinese succeeded in their goal of saving North Korea. The US did not succeed in its goal to defeat North Korea (though it did succeed in its goal of saving South Korea, so the ultimate result of the war was a stalemate).

To be fair, the goal of the UN intervention was never to defeat NK, just to save SK. Defeating NK was just an objective added later when it became clear the NK army was devastated. In a sense the failure of the NK invasion of SK frustrated the original war goals of Mao, Stalin and Kim, so no one got what they wanted.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 sebster wrote:
You have absolutely no clue how warfare has changed. Modern war is brutal and insanely fast. One way or another military dominance is established in days. The only way it can reach stalemate now is if the defeated force manages to go to ground and fight a sustained guerilla war of attrition, a strategy that would make zero sense for two major powers fighting in another country.

Oh dear. I don't even know how to respond to that. I didn't know the stalemate in Ukraine was an illusion? And modern warfare is so insanely fast, the war in Syria has only been going on for 6 years? Modern warfare can be over quickly, yes, but it can also drag on for very long. It depends on how the war plays out. In that sense, nothing has changed in warfare. Medieval wars too could be over in a matter or weeks, or they could drag on for a hundred years. Modern warfare is much more mobile and fluid than war in the past, but a war as a whole is not necessarily faster. Modern warfare still is decided by taking and holding territory, which ultimately can only be done by infantry. And it can take a long time to clear a city of hostile infantry. And when both sides can sent in reinforcements, or when both sides are roughly evenly matched, well. Wars can drag on for a long time.

Also, just because soldiers fight for in a conventional army doesn't mean they are not going to be using guerilla tactics if it gives them a better fighting chance. Especially if one side were to get beaten in conventional warfare, they could switch over to guerilla warfare and win in that way. The North Vietnamese army did this very effectively in the Vietnam War.

Ukraine is a bit of a terrible comparison due to the outside factors. The rebels only forced a stalemate because the Ukrainian army bled out against the Russian 'volunteers', plus the inherent risk that going in for the kill would risk Russian intervention. Ukraine is a stalemate or frozen conflict by design. Syria also isn't really modern warfare, its civil war with 1960's-1970's equipment at best, for which the rules are very different. The Syrian army tore itself apart in 2011, of course it wasn't going to be over quickly when the premier fighting force crippled itself at the start. Modern war in the sense of the Gulf War or the Israeli wars with its neighbours did show that a professional and well prepared modern force can end the real fighting in weeks if not months. Rebuilding is not really an option, so if your air force gets shot down you end up with nothing to defend your supply lines. The Korean War and Vietnam War while massive didn't have the problems a new Korean War might have, expensive hard to replace equipment. Pockets of encircled infantry might be bothersome, but they aren't going to be deciding the war anymore.

The comparison with North Vietnam is not that applicable. The US made sure never to invade the North, which gave guerrilla troops a place to regroup. The problem with the fall of NK is that the only place to regroup is across the Chinese border and that the NK population might not be as receptive to supporting guerrilla activities if the occupation manages to win over NK civilians. South Vietnam never had the popular support North Vietnam and the Vietcong did, but eventually the Vietcong did get crippled. Furthermore the Chinese border is a convenient river surrounded by seas. Not incredibly dense jungle surrounded by other countries the North Vietnamese could cross into. The conditions will be entirely different for any North Korean guerrilla activity.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 sebster wrote:

China doesn't have much in the way of global holdings. Sure, there is plenty of Chinese-owned businesses and such, but outside of the US the US would have trouble seizing anything.

So they don't have many global holdings, except for the roughly $10tn in global holdings they have. Gotcha. And the idea that the US would be unable to ensure Chinese assets outside of the US is bonkers for two reasons. First is you're trying to talk about a few trillion in the US as if that weren't much to worry about. Second is most of the rest of the holdings are in countries with strong security ties to the US. Hypothetically, if the US does some incredibly stupid stuff in the next couple of years culminating in an overt war of aggression in NK which China responds to by defending NK, then maybe Europe opts to stay out, maybe. But anything close to a neutral situation and Europe sides with the US, and freezes those Chinese assets.

No way. Europe likes Chinese money way better than it likes pointless US wars in which European countries have nothing to gain. Europe has strong ties to the US, and we will probably come to the aid of the US if it is attacked. But I don't think any European country would assist the US if it attacks North Korea and gets itself into a war with China. If any Dutch or German government decided to get involved, well that would be political suicide for them (and I imagine that goes for most other Western European countries as well). Europeans aren't very fond of war, and they will like it even less if that war would bring major damage to their economic prosperity. Europe has no obligations to assist the US in attacks, and they would stay neutral. Well, maybe I could see the British joining in. I don't know enough about countries like Canada and Australia to comment on them, but continental Europe? Forget it.

Sebster is probably right. I could see an asset freeze happening if a full scale war breaks out between the US and China. Its in the geopolitical interest of the West to make sure the US wins. Furthermore the West is conscious enough of the fact that China needs our money after the war again, China might be cross, but realistically money talks. Its not like the Chinese won't get those frozen assets back after the initiation of normalized contact or however they diplomatically phrase it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KTG17 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
That's very nice... I know plenty about the US and seemingly more about Chinese motivations which you keep ignoring. Your comparison to the war with Japan holds no merit because we actually had a Korean War with the US and China involved to compare things to. I'm not saying the US will go home. I'm saying the US will focus on the Korean peninsula so as not to risk escalation to a full scale war with China. The US can win Korea with some effort involved and not going balls to the wall against everything Chinese leaves room for a political resolution with China while doing as little economic damage to the US as possible. China will certainly restrain itself as a wider war isn't in its own interest, but neither is it in the interest of the US if it can be kept contained. In the end a limited war is much preferable looking at costs involved.

So you are arguing that US Forces will expose its rear and flanks to the Chinese Navy and Air Force operating from the South China sea?

What inept fool can we appoint to lead our forces with a strategy like that?

In the 1950s China had neither an air force, nor navy, let alone overseas assets to operate from. If you think the US isn't going to go about destroying any threat to its movement on the seas, especially if China attacks the US first, you are out of your mind. And never once did I say that the US would invade the Chinese mainland. I am saying the Chinese getting involved would be at the cost of losing everything outside their mainland.

No, read my point. China has no interest in escalation because it is to weak. If anything they will be most desperate to prevent escalation from outside the Korean peninsula like they did during the original Korean War. Both sides will watch each others movements like hawks but try to avoid hostile actions outside of the Koreas at all cost.

You seem to be unaware that the PRC actually restrained its air force during the Korean War, that isn't the Chinese claiming that, that was Omar Bradley. The PRC held back exactly to prevent escalation.

Other remarks contradicted MacArthur’s recurrent complaint about the advantage the Chinese derived from the administration’s refusal to grant him permission to bomb targets beyond the Yalu River in China. Democrat Walter George of Georgia, echoing MacArthur’s assertion that “China is using the maximum of her force against us,” said it was unfair that MacArthur had to fight a limited war while the Chinese fought all out.

Omar Bradley responded that George was quite mistaken—and, by implication, that MacArthur was quite misleading. The Chinese were not fighting all out, not by a great deal. “They have not used air against our front line troops, against our lines of communication in Korea, our ports; they have not used air against our bases in Japan or against our naval air forces.” China’s restraint in these areas had been crucial to the survival of American and U.N. forces in Korea. On balance, Bradley said, the limited nature of the war benefited the United States at least as much as it did the Chinese. “We are fighting under rather favorable rules for ourselves.”

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/redacted-testimony-fully-explains-why-general-macarthur-was-fired-180960622/

I never claimed you said the US would invade the Chinese mainland. I'm saying escalating the war outside of the Korean peninsula would be extremely costly for no reason, even without invading the mainland.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Well, if you are so determined to live in your own star-and-stripe filled fantasy world, I don't think I will be able to stop you.

Dude, you claimed China beat the US in Korea, and that CHina losing trade with the US wouldn't impact them much. You really need to look at your own fantasy world first.

Dear Seb, let me explain to you the meaning of fantasy. Fantasy is something that is not real. China beating the US in Korea was very real, the Chinese kicked the US all the way back to the 38th Parallel, after which the US got its act together again and prevented further losses, but it was unable to re-take most of the territory it lost. The Chinese succeeded in their goal of saving North Korea. The US did not succeed in its goal to defeat North Korea (though it did succeed in its goal of saving South Korea, so the ultimate result of the war was a stalemate).

To be fair, the goal of the UN intervention was never to defeat NK, just to save SK. Defeating NK was just an objective added later when it became clear the NK army was devastated. In a sense the failure of the NK invasion of SK frustrated the original war goals of Mao, Stalin and Kim, so no one got what they wanted.

That is an alternative point of view I can get behind. In that sense it is even more of a stalemate with both sides frustrating each other's objectives.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 sebster wrote:
You have absolutely no clue how warfare has changed. Modern war is brutal and insanely fast. One way or another military dominance is established in days. The only way it can reach stalemate now is if the defeated force manages to go to ground and fight a sustained guerilla war of attrition, a strategy that would make zero sense for two major powers fighting in another country.

Oh dear. I don't even know how to respond to that. I didn't know the stalemate in Ukraine was an illusion? And modern warfare is so insanely fast, the war in Syria has only been going on for 6 years? Modern warfare can be over quickly, yes, but it can also drag on for very long. It depends on how the war plays out. In that sense, nothing has changed in warfare. Medieval wars too could be over in a matter or weeks, or they could drag on for a hundred years. Modern warfare is much more mobile and fluid than war in the past, but a war as a whole is not necessarily faster. Modern warfare still is decided by taking and holding territory, which ultimately can only be done by infantry. And it can take a long time to clear a city of hostile infantry. And when both sides can sent in reinforcements, or when both sides are roughly evenly matched, well. Wars can drag on for a long time.

Also, just because soldiers fight for in a conventional army doesn't mean they are not going to be using guerilla tactics if it gives them a better fighting chance. Especially if one side were to get beaten in conventional warfare, they could switch over to guerilla warfare and win in that way. The North Vietnamese army did this very effectively in the Vietnam War.

Ukraine is a bit of a terrible comparison due to the outside factors. The rebels only forced a stalemate because the Ukrainian army bled out against the Russian 'volunteers', plus the inherent risk that going in for the kill would risk Russian intervention. Ukraine is a stalemate or frozen conflict by design. Syria also isn't really modern warfare, its civil war with 1960's-1970's equipment at best, for which the rules are very different. The Syrian army tore itself apart in 2011, of course it wasn't going to be over quickly when the premier fighting force crippled itself at the start. Modern war in the sense of the Gulf War or the Israeli wars with its neighbours did show that a professional and well prepared modern force can end the real fighting in weeks if not months. Rebuilding is not really an option, so if your air force gets shot down you end up with nothing to defend your supply lines. The Korean War and Vietnam War while massive didn't have the problems a new Korean War might have, expensive hard to replace equipment. Pockets of encircled infantry might be bothersome, but they aren't going to be deciding the war anymore.

The Gulf War and Israeli wars are also very bad examples, because it is one vastly superior force going up against a greatly inferior force. That would be like putting up the British campaigns against the Zulu's as an example of 19th century warfare. We haven't seen any 'proper' conventional war since the Korean War. All wars since then have either been a much stronger vs a much weaker force or civil wars. The Great Patriotic War and the Korean War were the last times we had two sides that were roughly evenly matched facing each other in conventional warfare.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
The comparison with North Vietnam is not that applicable. The US made sure never to invade the North, which gave guerrilla troops a place to regroup. The problem with the fall of NK is that the only place to regroup is across the Chinese border and that the NK population might not be as receptive to supporting guerrilla activities if the occupation manages to win over NK civilians. South Vietnam never had the popular support North Vietnam and the Vietcong did, but eventually the Vietcong did get crippled. Furthermore the Chinese border is a convenient river surrounded by seas. Not incredibly dense jungle surrounded by other countries the North Vietnamese could cross into. The conditions will be entirely different for any North Korean guerrilla activity.

Valid points, but it is difficult to give an assessment of precisely how effective North Korean guerilla warfare would be. The population could fanatically resist any invasion, or they could welcome them as liberators. Given the fact there is so little information about North Korea, it is difficult to be certain.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 sebster wrote:

China doesn't have much in the way of global holdings. Sure, there is plenty of Chinese-owned businesses and such, but outside of the US the US would have trouble seizing anything.

So they don't have many global holdings, except for the roughly $10tn in global holdings they have. Gotcha. And the idea that the US would be unable to ensure Chinese assets outside of the US is bonkers for two reasons. First is you're trying to talk about a few trillion in the US as if that weren't much to worry about. Second is most of the rest of the holdings are in countries with strong security ties to the US. Hypothetically, if the US does some incredibly stupid stuff in the next couple of years culminating in an overt war of aggression in NK which China responds to by defending NK, then maybe Europe opts to stay out, maybe. But anything close to a neutral situation and Europe sides with the US, and freezes those Chinese assets.

No way. Europe likes Chinese money way better than it likes pointless US wars in which European countries have nothing to gain. Europe has strong ties to the US, and we will probably come to the aid of the US if it is attacked. But I don't think any European country would assist the US if it attacks North Korea and gets itself into a war with China. If any Dutch or German government decided to get involved, well that would be political suicide for them (and I imagine that goes for most other Western European countries as well). Europeans aren't very fond of war, and they will like it even less if that war would bring major damage to their economic prosperity. Europe has no obligations to assist the US in attacks, and they would stay neutral. Well, maybe I could see the British joining in. I don't know enough about countries like Canada and Australia to comment on them, but continental Europe? Forget it.

Sebster is probably right. I could see an asset freeze happening if a full scale war breaks out between the US and China. Its in the geopolitical interest of the West to make sure the US wins. Furthermore the West is conscious enough of the fact that China needs our money after the war again, China might be cross, but realistically money talks. Its not like the Chinese won't get those frozen assets back after the initiation of normalized contact or however they diplomatically phrase it.

The Chinese airforce was no better equipped than the NK one, which is why Mao begged Stalin for air support. I don't care what Bradley may have known at the time, its what we all know now. So when I say they had no air force, I am exaggerating, but I wouldn't think including a few squadrons of Migs and a whole bunch of obsolete aircraft as an airforce comparable to what the US would consider a threat then (especially with a 10-1 shootdown success rate) let alone what the Chinese have today.

Oh I am sure the Chinese had some riverboats too. Damn, I said they had no navy I was wrong on that too.

If you believe that if a war breaks out between China and the US, that the US will just sail by these islands and not do anything, we'll just note the date and time of these arguments and check back later.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

That is an alternative point of view I can get behind. In that sense it is even more of a stalemate with both sides frustrating each other's objectives.

Best book I have ever read on the Korean War:

https://www.amazon.com/This-Kind-War-Classic-Military-ebook/dp/B00J3EU6IK

Everyone who wants to comment on that war should read this book first. One of the critical issues the book points out is how unprepared the US was to go to war, and the lesson learned was to not be so unprepared again. You can say what you want about the industrial military machine, but a lot of it stems from the lessons learned in this war.

Excellent book.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 sebster wrote:
You have absolutely no clue how warfare has changed. Modern war is brutal and insanely fast. One way or another military dominance is established in days. The only way it can reach stalemate now is if the defeated force manages to go to ground and fight a sustained guerilla war of attrition, a strategy that would make zero sense for two major powers fighting in another country.

Oh dear. I don't even know how to respond to that. I didn't know the stalemate in Ukraine was an illusion? And modern warfare is so insanely fast, the war in Syria has only been going on for 6 years? Modern warfare can be over quickly, yes, but it can also drag on for very long. It depends on how the war plays out. In that sense, nothing has changed in warfare. Medieval wars too could be over in a matter or weeks, or they could drag on for a hundred years. Modern warfare is much more mobile and fluid than war in the past, but a war as a whole is not necessarily faster. Modern warfare still is decided by taking and holding territory, which ultimately can only be done by infantry. And it can take a long time to clear a city of hostile infantry. And when both sides can sent in reinforcements, or when both sides are roughly evenly matched, well. Wars can drag on for a long time.

Also, just because soldiers fight for in a conventional army doesn't mean they are not going to be using guerilla tactics if it gives them a better fighting chance. Especially if one side were to get beaten in conventional warfare, they could switch over to guerilla warfare and win in that way. The North Vietnamese army did this very effectively in the Vietnam War.

Ukraine is a bit of a terrible comparison due to the outside factors. The rebels only forced a stalemate because the Ukrainian army bled out against the Russian 'volunteers', plus the inherent risk that going in for the kill would risk Russian intervention. Ukraine is a stalemate or frozen conflict by design. Syria also isn't really modern warfare, its civil war with 1960's-1970's equipment at best, for which the rules are very different. The Syrian army tore itself apart in 2011, of course it wasn't going to be over quickly when the premier fighting force crippled itself at the start. Modern war in the sense of the Gulf War or the Israeli wars with its neighbours did show that a professional and well prepared modern force can end the real fighting in weeks if not months. Rebuilding is not really an option, so if your air force gets shot down you end up with nothing to defend your supply lines. The Korean War and Vietnam War while massive didn't have the problems a new Korean War might have, expensive hard to replace equipment. Pockets of encircled infantry might be bothersome, but they aren't going to be deciding the war anymore.

The Gulf War and Israeli wars are also very bad examples, because it is one vastly superior force going up against a greatly inferior force. That would be like putting up the British campaigns against the Zulu's as an example of 19th century warfare. We haven't seen any 'proper' conventional war since the Korean War. All wars since then have either been a much stronger vs a much weaker force or civil wars. The Great Patriotic War and the Korean War were the last times we had two sides that were roughly evenly matched facing each other in conventional warfare.

True, the Gulf War might be. But the Israeli Six Day War and the Yom Kippur War were not. The forces arranged against each other were fairly evenly matched in material. Training and leadership won it for the Israelis in the end. The short wars between relatively similarly equipped modern armies became the norm, because losing hard to replace equipment usually meant the end. The Indo-Pakistani conflicts, the Falklands, the Israeli wars. They all were decided by decisive advantages by knocking out enemy material. Of course its possible to keep going, but its incredibly hard if the opponent still has some of their modern equipment left. There is no reason to believe the US won't go for the knockout in NK and push everything in, equally to be able to hypothetically have a chance of countering that China would have to fully commit too. But after a few eeks when most planes have been lost and making new ones takes months what options are left?

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
The comparison with North Vietnam is not that applicable. The US made sure never to invade the North, which gave guerrilla troops a place to regroup. The problem with the fall of NK is that the only place to regroup is across the Chinese border and that the NK population might not be as receptive to supporting guerrilla activities if the occupation manages to win over NK civilians. South Vietnam never had the popular support North Vietnam and the Vietcong did, but eventually the Vietcong did get crippled. Furthermore the Chinese border is a convenient river surrounded by seas. Not incredibly dense jungle surrounded by other countries the North Vietnamese could cross into. The conditions will be entirely different for any North Korean guerrilla activity.

Valid points, but it is difficult to give an assessment of precisely how effective North Korean guerilla warfare would be. The population could fanatically resist any invasion, or they could welcome them as liberators. Given the fact there is so little information about North Korea, it is difficult to be certain.

Yes that is hard estimating, but the geographic conditions aren't nearly as favourable the North Koreans as the North Vietnamese. But even with population support sustainability would be questionable. How effective could NK be to sustain a guerrilla war without outside support? I assume they have prepared a great deal for the eventuality, but reality is hard to guess at. Having SK support is also invaluable as a factor as the South Vietnam government wasn't nearly as helpful.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
China doesn't have much in the way of global holdings. Sure, there is plenty of Chinese-owned businesses and such, but outside of the US the US would have trouble seizing anything.

So they don't have many global holdings, except for the roughly $10tn in global holdings they have. Gotcha. And the idea that the US would be unable to ensure Chinese assets outside of the US is bonkers for two reasons. First is you're trying to talk about a few trillion in the US as if that weren't much to worry about. Second is most of the rest of the holdings are in countries with strong security ties to the US. Hypothetically, if the US does some incredibly stupid stuff in the next couple of years culminating in an overt war of aggression in NK which China responds to by defending NK, then maybe Europe opts to stay out, maybe. But anything close to a neutral situation and Europe sides with the US, and freezes those Chinese assets.

No way. Europe likes Chinese money way better than it likes pointless US wars in which European countries have nothing to gain. Europe has strong ties to the US, and we will probably come to the aid of the US if it is attacked. But I don't think any European country would assist the US if it attacks North Korea and gets itself into a war with China. If any Dutch or German government decided to get involved, well that would be political suicide for them (and I imagine that goes for most other Western European countries as well). Europeans aren't very fond of war, and they will like it even less if that war would bring major damage to their economic prosperity. Europe has no obligations to assist the US in attacks, and they would stay neutral. Well, maybe I could see the British joining in. I don't know enough about countries like Canada and Australia to comment on them, but continental Europe? Forget it.

Sebster is probably right. I could see an asset freeze happening if a full scale war breaks out between the US and China. Its in the geopolitical interest of the West to make sure the US wins. Furthermore the West is conscious enough of the fact that China needs our money after the war again, China might be cross, but realistically money talks. Its not like the Chinese won't get those frozen assets back after the initiation of normalized contact or however they diplomatically phrase it.

I am not so certain. China needs European money, but Europe needs Chinese money just as much. Freezing Chinese assets will collapse European economies. I really think it is going to depend on who the aggressor is. If North Korea or China is the aggressor, then Europe will probably come to the aid of the US, probably through freezing Chinese assets and indirect military support. If the US or South Korea is the aggressor, then Europe will have no obligation to aid the US and most likely won't do so (European politicians will not have forgotten the resistance against participating in earlier US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan after all). A US victory is in European interests, but not that much. Europe has little in the way of interaction with North Korea. It doesn't threaten North Korea and is not threatened by it. European nations have little to gain or lose from a war in Korea either way. Securing trade and interaction with China is a bigger geopolitical interest for Europe than the defeat of North Korea.

Sure, we are economically interlinked. Freezing Chinese assets and trade won't make economies collapse, but it certainly will be the worst economic crisis in history. Or the cynical option would of course be to hold China to ransom while freezing assets, they certainly need their trade with Europe when engaged in a costly conflict with the US. No need to stop trading just because of a little asset freezing right? It depends on a lot of factors, but damage can be contained to an extent by smart manoeuvring. Europe will likely be divided in the case of an actual conflict, just like with Iraq as you said. Most European countries are in no position to directly offer any support. Even indirect support might be unlikely, not much that Europe has on offer the US doesn't have. Even planes and tanks that would need replacing first are likely very difficult due to issues with not being familiar with how to operate and service them.

A US victory in NK is important to Europe not because it only defeats NK, its important because it further cements the dominant position of the US in the world and by extension its European allies. It chips away at the regional system China has set up and delays its possible future in which it directly challenges the US and by extension Europe over the hegemonic position in East Asia or even the World. Trade and economic interaction with China will continue because we just need each other. But there are significant advantages in undermining China to postpone any possible hegemonic transition. It means the prolonged preservation of Western values and standards on the international stage. Something China is also keenly aware of as an opponent of them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KTG17 wrote:
The Chinese airforce was no better equipped than the NK one, which is why Mao begged Stalin for air support. I don't care what Bradley may have known at the time, its what we all know now. So when I say they had no air force, I am exaggerating, but I wouldn't think including a few squadrons of Migs and a whole bunch of obsolete aircraft as an airforce comparable to what the US would consider a threat then (especially with a 10-1 shootdown success rate) let alone what the Chinese have today.

Oh I am sure the Chinese had some riverboats too. Damn, I said they had no navy I was wrong on that too.

If you believe that if a war breaks out between China and the US, that the US will just sail by these islands and not do anything, we'll just note the date and time of these arguments and check back later.

My point was that if war broke out between the US and China in Korea they would avoid escalation. Not war in general. Be snarky all you want.

The 10:1 thing? All sides claimed high succes versus less casualties. Pilot reports aren't that reliable when it comes to claiming 'kills'. The Soviets claimed a 3:1 rate, so which side is right? The Chinese had quite a reasonable air force, you claimed it had none which is just false.

Let's not go all Tom Clancy and try to write Red Dragon Rising or some such.

Ultimately, in the here and now the US is going to do exactly jack all, except talk tough. NK is going to do the same, and we will get no closer to any actual resolution.

I am okay with that, because Containment is the only reliable and proven method of winning.

What happens IF Mr. Kim puts a nuke on one of his rockets and lobs it at Japan or California?

Retaliate with nukes? Invade? Airstrikes on the border and take out as many mortars as possible?

War with NK would be over extremely quick in combat terms, the political and diplomatic fallout would be the 'war' that dragged on for years. There's no reason to believe NK could conduct anything resembling an effective or long-term defense against the US military. As previously established the real concern is how much damage they do to civilians in SK on their way out.

How China would perform in a war against the US is irrelevant because China won't go to war with the US, nor will the US go to war with China. Economic MAD would be number one on a long list of reasons not to. We could theorize how Australia would perform against the US and it would be on similar levels of fiction.

 kronk wrote:
What happens IF Mr. Kim puts a nuke on one of his rockets and lobs it at Japan or California?

Retaliate with nukes? Invade? Airstrikes on the border and take out as many mortars as possible?

Well if Kim is that stupid NK is done for. If it doesn't involve nuking them back it certainly means the end of the NK state by invasion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
War with NK would be over extremely quick in combat terms, the political and diplomatic fallout would be the 'war' that dragged on for years. There's no reason to believe NK could conduct anything resembling an effective or long-term defense against the US military. As previously established the real concern is how much damage they do to civilians in SK on their way out.

How China would perform in a war against the US is irrelevant because China won't go to war with the US, nor will the US go to war with China. Economic MAD would be number one on a long list of reasons not to. We could theorize how Australia would perform against the US and it would be on similar levels of fiction.

Yes, but what comes after the invasion is incredibly important to China. Still guessing they quickly move in to claim what they can.

As for resistance? Maybe a guerilla effort. Nothing that will dislodge an occupation with patience.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 kronk wrote:
What happens IF Mr. Kim puts a nuke on one of his rockets and lobs it at Japan or California?

Retaliate with nukes? Invade? Airstrikes on the border and take out as many mortars as possible?

Well if Kim is that stupid NK is done for. If it doesn't involve nuking them back it certainly means the end of the NK state by invasion.

Agreed, but if they have the mortars and rockets to level Seoul as has been projected? Are we still doing it? Or are all gloves coming off if they send a nuke and "Sorry, South Korea. You have to take one for the team."?

 kronk wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 kronk wrote:
What happens IF Mr. Kim puts a nuke on one of his rockets and lobs it at Japan or California?

Retaliate with nukes? Invade? Airstrikes on the border and take out as many mortars as possible?

Well if Kim is that stupid NK is done for. If it doesn't involve nuking them back it certainly means the end of the NK state by invasion.

Agreed, but if they have the mortars and rockets to level Seoul as has been projected? Are we still doing it? Or are all gloves coming off if they send a nuke and "Sorry, South Korea. You have to take one for the team."?

I mean you have to take off the gloves when it comes to nukes being used. Letting even a single nuke through and not responding completely invalidates nukes as a deterrence to nukes. What if they send one nuke again 5 years later? Just another lonesome nuke? It might even go for South Korea the next time. Letting even a single nuke through is unacceptable. It just opens up a new realm of horrible possibilities of pushing the envelope.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 sebster wrote:
You have absolutely no clue how warfare has changed. Modern war is brutal and insanely fast. One way or another military dominance is established in days. The only way it can reach stalemate now is if the defeated force manages to go to ground and fight a sustained guerilla war of attrition, a strategy that would make zero sense for two major powers fighting in another country.

Oh dear. I don't even know how to respond to that. I didn't know the stalemate in Ukraine was an illusion? And modern warfare is so insanely fast, the war in Syria has only been going on for 6 years? Modern warfare can be over quickly, yes, but it can also drag on for very long. It depends on how the war plays out. In that sense, nothing has changed in warfare. Medieval wars too could be over in a matter or weeks, or they could drag on for a hundred years. Modern warfare is much more mobile and fluid than war in the past, but a war as a whole is not necessarily faster. Modern warfare still is decided by taking and holding territory, which ultimately can only be done by infantry. And it can take a long time to clear a city of hostile infantry. And when both sides can sent in reinforcements, or when both sides are roughly evenly matched, well. Wars can drag on for a long time.

Also, just because soldiers fight for in a conventional army doesn't mean they are not going to be using guerilla tactics if it gives them a better fighting chance. Especially if one side were to get beaten in conventional warfare, they could switch over to guerilla warfare and win in that way. The North Vietnamese army did this very effectively in the Vietnam War.

Ukraine is a bit of a terrible comparison due to the outside factors. The rebels only forced a stalemate because the Ukrainian army bled out against the Russian 'volunteers', plus the inherent risk that going in for the kill would risk Russian intervention. Ukraine is a stalemate or frozen conflict by design. Syria also isn't really modern warfare, its civil war with 1960's-1970's equipment at best, for which the rules are very different. The Syrian army tore itself apart in 2011, of course it wasn't going to be over quickly when the premier fighting force crippled itself at the start. Modern war in the sense of the Gulf War or the Israeli wars with its neighbours did show that a professional and well prepared modern force can end the real fighting in weeks if not months. Rebuilding is not really an option, so if your air force gets shot down you end up with nothing to defend your supply lines. The Korean War and Vietnam War while massive didn't have the problems a new Korean War might have, expensive hard to replace equipment. Pockets of encircled infantry might be bothersome, but they aren't going to be deciding the war anymore.

The Gulf War and Israeli wars are also very bad examples, because it is one vastly superior force going up against a greatly inferior force. That would be like putting up the British campaigns against the Zulu's as an example of 19th century warfare. We haven't seen any 'proper' conventional war since the Korean War. All wars since then have either been a much stronger vs a much weaker force or civil wars. The Great Patriotic War and the Korean War were the last times we had two sides that were roughly evenly matched facing each other in conventional warfare.

True, the Gulf War might be. But the Israeli Six Day War and the Yom Kippur War were not. The forces arranged against each other were fairly evenly matched in material. Training and leadership won it for the Israelis in the end. The short wars between relatively similarly equipped modern armies became the norm, because losing hard to replace equipment usually meant the end. The Indo-Pakistani conflicts, the Falklands, the Israeli wars. They all were decided by decisive advantages by knocking out enemy material. Of course its possible to keep going, but its incredibly hard if the opponent still has some of their modern equipment left. There is no reason to believe the US won't go for the knockout in NK and push everything in, equally to be able to hypothetically have a chance of countering that China would have to fully commit too. But after a few eeks when most planes have been lost and making new ones takes months what options are left?

The Six Day War was everything but equal. It is a horrible example because the Israeli attack was a surprise attack. A war where one side gets to knock out all of the equipment of the other side before the war begins isn't equal. That is why the concept of first strike or preemptive strike is so important. Getting the drop on your opponent is a massively powerful advantage. And that is before getting into a massive difference in training, leadership, morale, discipline etc. Claiming the Six Days War is equal simply because the Arabs had equal or larger numbers is like claiming a US-North Korea war is equal because the North Koreans have more soldiers. One side is so massively superior to the other that it is anything but equal. Numbers and material are important in war, but they are only effective when coupled with good leadership. The Falklands is also not a very good example of a modern war, because it was fought in a remote location with very limited forces.
And the Indo-Pakistani war may have been over quickly, but the Iran-Iraq war went on for almost 8 years. As I said, a war can be over quickly or it can grind on for very long. That was true for warfare in the past and it is equally true for modern warfare. It is not so that all modern wars are over quickly. Claiming that is to be ignorant of the realities of military conflict.
Also, if you run out of planes in a matter of days you have been doing something wrong and likely deserve losing the war (or the opponent was much stronger or better prepared(In which case I guess you have also been doing things wrong)).

Before World War I, people often talked about Economic MAD keeping the peace. Look how well that worked out.

Forgive me if I put little faith in Economic MAD. I prefer the real, violent kind of MAD to keep the peace.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 sebster wrote:
You have absolutely no clue how warfare has changed. Modern war is brutal and insanely fast. One way or another military dominance is established in days. The only way it can reach stalemate now is if the defeated force manages to go to ground and fight a sustained guerilla war of attrition, a strategy that would make zero sense for two major powers fighting in another country.

Oh dear. I don't even know how to respond to that. I didn't know the stalemate in Ukraine was an illusion? And modern warfare is so insanely fast, the war in Syria has only been going on for 6 years? Modern warfare can be over quickly, yes, but it can also drag on for very long. It depends on how the war plays out. In that sense, nothing has changed in warfare. Medieval wars too could be over in a matter or weeks, or they could drag on for a hundred years. Modern warfare is much more mobile and fluid than war in the past, but a war as a whole is not necessarily faster. Modern warfare still is decided by taking and holding territory, which ultimately can only be done by infantry. And it can take a long time to clear a city of hostile infantry. And when both sides can sent in reinforcements, or when both sides are roughly evenly matched, well. Wars can drag on for a long time.

Also, just because soldiers fight for in a conventional army doesn't mean they are not going to be using guerilla tactics if it gives them a better fighting chance. Especially if one side were to get beaten in conventional warfare, they could switch over to guerilla warfare and win in that way. The North Vietnamese army did this very effectively in the Vietnam War.

Ukraine is a bit of a terrible comparison due to the outside factors. The rebels only forced a stalemate because the Ukrainian army bled out against the Russian 'volunteers', plus the inherent risk that going in for the kill would risk Russian intervention. Ukraine is a stalemate or frozen conflict by design. Syria also isn't really modern warfare, its civil war with 1960's-1970's equipment at best, for which the rules are very different. The Syrian army tore itself apart in 2011, of course it wasn't going to be over quickly when the premier fighting force crippled itself at the start. Modern war in the sense of the Gulf War or the Israeli wars with its neighbours did show that a professional and well prepared modern force can end the real fighting in weeks if not months. Rebuilding is not really an option, so if your air force gets shot down you end up with nothing to defend your supply lines. The Korean War and Vietnam War while massive didn't have the problems a new Korean War might have, expensive hard to replace equipment. Pockets of encircled infantry might be bothersome, but they aren't going to be deciding the war anymore.

The Gulf War and Israeli wars are also very bad examples, because it is one vastly superior force going up against a greatly inferior force. That would be like putting up the British campaigns against the Zulu's as an example of 19th century warfare. We haven't seen any 'proper' conventional war since the Korean War. All wars since then have either been a much stronger vs a much weaker force or civil wars. The Great Patriotic War and the Korean War were the last times we had two sides that were roughly evenly matched facing each other in conventional warfare.

True, the Gulf War might be. But the Israeli Six Day War and the Yom Kippur War were not. The forces arranged against each other were fairly evenly matched in material. Training and leadership won it for the Israelis in the end. The short wars between relatively similarly equipped modern armies became the norm, because losing hard to replace equipment usually meant the end. The Indo-Pakistani conflicts, the Falklands, the Israeli wars. They all were decided by decisive advantages by knocking out enemy material. Of course its possible to keep going, but its incredibly hard if the opponent still has some of their modern equipment left. There is no reason to believe the US won't go for the knockout in NK and push everything in, equally to be able to hypothetically have a chance of countering that China would have to fully commit too. But after a few eeks when most planes have been lost and making new ones takes months what options are left?

The Six Day War was everything but equal. It is a horrible example because the Israeli attack was a surprise attack. A war where one side gets to knock out all of the equipment of the other side before the war begins isn't equal. That is why the concept of first strike or preemptive strike is so important. Getting the drop on your opponent is a massively powerful advantage. And that is before getting into a massive difference in training, leadership, morale, discipline etc. Claiming the Six Days War is equal simply because the Arabs had equal or larger numbers is like claiming a US-North Korea war is equal because the North Koreans have more soldiers. One side is so massively superior to the other that it is anything but equal. Numbers and material are important in war, but they are only effective when coupled with good leadership. The Falklands is also not a very good example of a modern war, because it was fought in a remote location with very limited forces.
And the Indo-Pakistani war may have been over quickly, but the Iran-Iraq war went on for almost 8 years. As I said, a war can be over quickly or it can grind on for very long. That was true for warfare in the past and it is equally true for modern warfare. It is not so that all modern wars are over quickly. Claiming that is to be ignorant of the realities of military conflict.
Also, if you run out of planes in a matter of days you have been doing something wrong and likely deserve losing the war (or the opponent was much stronger or better prepared).

That's why the combination of the Six Day War and the Yom Kippur War is so important. Both were between roughly equal forces material and size wise and both sides had the surprise once. Yet both were short conflicts. The gap between the Arab militaries and the Isreali military was not that huge. The same differences in leadership, morale and training will apply between any potential US and China war. The Falklands was a good example of two modern forces clashing with state of the art air forces at the time, once the air war was won by the British further operations by the Argentinians quickly became unsustainable. The Falklands was a great and perhaps the only example of a modern war involving mainly air and sea forces. Just because it was limited in scope does not devalue the time required and material lost, in less then two months the Argentinians lost almost half of their air force. That's an incredible blow.

The Iran-Iraq War is an example of a modern war with decently modern material. But with terrible training, execution and leadership. It was an example of Iran winning the material war, but with the rest of the army being so fething awful (due to the Iranian Revolution) they couldn't capitalize on those successes. The war was realistically over after the first year, both sides just didn't want to quit nor had the materiel or expertise to do anything about it. Which is very unlikely in the case of the US or any actual modern military, any competent military would have won the Iran-Iraq War much quicker.

You're not running out of planes in a matter of days, but weeks and months. Take into account that for modern military equipment the rate of production is at most dozens or perhaps over a 100 a year you can't even afford to lose a single plane a day (even if the pilots survive). Modern military hardware can't be produced for attrition warfare. The opening offensive will be decisive for either air force. Just like in the Iran-Iraq war. Plus most countries couldn't even dream of building their own advanced aircraft.

The classic blunder is to get involved in a land war in Asia.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 kronk wrote:
What happens IF Mr. Kim puts a nuke on one of his rockets and lobs it at Japan or California?

Retaliate with nukes? Invade? Airstrikes on the border and take out as many mortars as possible?

Well if Kim is that stupid NK is done for. If it doesn't involve nuking them back it certainly means the end of the NK state by invasion.

Agreed, but if they have the mortars and rockets to level Seoul as has been projected? Are we still doing it? Or are all gloves coming off if they send a nuke and "Sorry, South Korea. You have to take one for the team."?

I mean you have to take off the gloves when it comes to nukes being used. Letting even a single nuke through and not responding completely invalidates nukes as a deterrence to nukes. What if they send one nuke again 5 years later? Just another lonesome nuke? It might even go for South Korea the next time. Letting even a single nuke through is unacceptable. It just opens up a new realm of horrible possibilities of pushing the envelope.

If he fired a Nuke and it hit its target and nuked SK.

I'm pretty sure any agreement with China would be invalid and general allowance to open up with everything Allied forced got on NK would be open..

China can only protect them so far, and is only willing to defend against a attack initiated by another party.

There first strike would void thr terms.