Political Crossfire Forums

So I figure with all of the issues lately coming from North Korea, I would like to start a discussion with how some of us feel the US strategy should be in the event a major war breaks out. (This can be as detailed as you want.)

To start this off, North Korea attempts a bombing of South Korea/US naval bases with missiles and attacks major S. Korean military locations along the DMZ and other cities. War has begun. The United States and its allies are forced to respond with force.

What is the US strategy going forward? Should there be an invasion and toppling of the North Korean regime? Should US boots be on the ground? If there is an occupation, should the previous NK military be kept together for peaceful purposes unlike the strategy in Iraq? Should we simply retaliate then pull back in the event the North Korean army is quickly retreated behind its borders?



http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/09/world/nor ... index.html

Nothing. NK attacked the south before a few years ago and nothing was done. The fear of another quagmire would keep the US out of it. I say if they sling nukes, nuke them to glass. Other than that, nothing in it for us so stay the hell away. We have our own quagmire in Washington to deal with.

As far as the war goes, we should meet our treaty obligations, though our main strength is strategic. ROK ground forces should take the lead. As far as the occupation goes, thats someone else's problem, but there is no way its comparable to Iraq. No religious fanatacism or sectarian idiocy to any meaningful degree. I think people would opportunistically start rubbing their eyes and blinking at reality in a big hurry. Like snapping out of a trance.

Poor ROK. Having to rebuild while trying to feed all those zombies....it would ruin them.

If they start playing with nukes, erase their civilization for good measure. Glass it. Too dangerous a precedent not to.

The problem is that if they attack SK, they will necessarily attack US forces (bases, ships, troops, etc.). Assuming it's a surprise attack, we can expect several hundred to several thousand US troops to die or be wounded. While we might debate the merit of them being there in the first place, that debate would be rendered moot as soon as they were attacked.

I'd prefer to see a full-scale invasion, ala June 6, 1945. Aerial bombing runs around the clock of all major war-making locations (production, storage, military bases, headquarters, etc.). Marines landing on the beach. Army tanks rolling in. Navy ships launching missiles and aircraft. The whole shebang.

If done full-scale, there would be no need to revist the quagmire that became the Korean Conflict of the 50s. If you cut off supply lines at the source, there is no need to slog through snow-covered mountain passes fighting a ground war. Let the NK stay in their caves and starve.

NK would fall in 3 months.

Oh, it would fall fast. But so did Iraq. The key thing is to pack up and leave, and not mess around with an occupation at all.

I think it could be argued pretty easily that a heavily American influenced Korea would be a fantastic strategic position to deter Russia and China. I mean, that's not what I am saying, but I wouldn't doubt that a toppled regime and cooperated occupation would be beneficial for the United States in the long run. Although, the last thing I want is for us to be babysitting another damn country.

The US should not be involved militarily. If we do, China will see the US as a threat and work against our interest. If we don't, China would be an ally before they are invested in South Korea too. We should form an alliance with China, South Korea, and Japan to Keep North Korea contained.

I think the best strategy is to defend Austin TX at all costs. We need to ring the city with SDI and lasers.

That little f**k doesn't like Samsung and it's right by my house.