Posted on 10/11/2006 7:03:38 PM PDT by Flavius
PLANS previously drafted by the Pentagon predict 52,000 US military casualties and one million civilian dead in the first 90 days of conflict if America attacked Pyongyang. The US leadership is looking at international economic and diplomatic sanctions against North Korea as its primary response to Monday's nuclear test.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.au ...
Which appears to not be you.
I don't see how they would have the air superiority necessary to do that.
That is precisely why I am a hawk.
Yes, but what if prior to bombing North Korea we evacuate citizens from Seoul and pull our forces way back south? North Korean artillery would still damage much of Seoul, but there'd be no civilian casualties. And once North Korean troops crossed the border, there'd be no one there to fight. Instead, they'd be out in the open and vulnerable to heavy bombing. Later on, U.S. and South Korean troops can move north to clean up what's left. And citizens can move back into Seoul and commence repairs.
If they move any significant numbers to those tunnels, we'll know where they are. Then it's bunker busters and thermobaric bombs on the entrances. Not a nice way to go.
The bomb wasn't built on Tinian. It was loaded into the bombers there, and there may have been some assembly, as there was some, at least of the Hiroshima bomb, after takeoff.
When all is said and done, your scenario is probably the way history is going to unfold.
North Korea wants South Korea.
With nuclear weapons, they can now attack the south with impunity, because if the south dares to fight back, they risk destruction. On the Korean peninsula, nuclear weapons are the trump card that wins.
No one can stop North Korea from taking the south - EXCEPT the United States.
But in the end, the U.S. won't stop them, because the risks of war with China are too high, and the costs in lives will be too high for the American people to accept. Half of America seems unwilling to accept even the modest costs that war in Iraq and Afghanistan have produced.
Another reason America will decline to confront North Korea is because we don't have a military force large enough, nor the materiel, with which to fight on the ground. And by the time we raised such an army (can you say "draft"? I knew you could!), Seoul will have fallen to the north, and there will be nearly nothing in Korea at that point to "defend".
It doesn't look very good right now for the South Koreans.
Nor for Taiwan. Regardless of years of lip-service, when it comes down to the brass tacks (or nuclear dust), the American people are [for better or for worse] simply unwilling to put their lives and country on the line for the Taiwanese.
- John
Pretty much as well as other relatively low yield thermonuclear bombs. They are very politically incorrect though. Capitalist Bombs, don't you know. Maybe we could borrow some from the French?
NK is playing for keeps and they will batter the hell out of whoever makes a move on them.
52,000 sounds about right for a conventional war. However, why we would need boots on the ground is beyond me. That's SK's job.
Make no mistake, the NORK's would give China a damned good blood letting.
That would be fine, but it never happens. The politicians, on both sides, always stick their oar in, one way or another. That's the god thing about Roosevelt, he set very broad objectives, and let the Joint Chiefs handle the details, even of the strategy.
By 1953 the Korean War was over, there were 55,000 deaths and many, many more casualties, so this is a recent estimate by a fearful leadership with no vision, no effective strategies (such as a massive and prolonged bombing campaign). Anyway, it's a red herring in an effort to save face for the White House, because we don't need to attack Poingyang, we need to drop a few tactical nukes or huge conventional bombs on their nuclear weapons sites. There is no need to take on the entire country.
But not as bad a single nuke, even a baby one.
tactical nukes; or MOABS, cruise missles, icbms, and whatever else we have that falls from the sky and blows things up.
Would you please explain clearly to us how YOU would prevent American casualties???
Mobile arty can do the same shoot and scoot trick as mobile missile launchers. Ours have GPS, amongst other things, so the first shot from the new location is still pretty darn accurate.
FDR on few occasions over ruled his military people and made his own tactical choices.
Operation Torch was one of them. It was a political consideration that lead him to order the operation. It wound up being the right decision.
Sometimes the political hand played is a better military choice than not.
After reading about FDR and Lincoln in their wars, sometimes I fear Bush is deferring too much to his generals in Iraq and not pushing them hard enough.
That's why, when the Pueblo was hijacked by NK, ('68 almost 40 years ago) there were no conventionally armed US fighters close enough to do anything before the ship was taken into port. IIRC, some were launched, but then recalled.
That's why we have MOABS. They will take out hundreds of troops, (or more), per bomb, and they have a devestating psychological effect on the rest of them. Fuel air bombs, daisy cutters, we have a great arsenal of anti-personnel bombs. I don't think they'd get very far at all. And for those NK troops advancing from deeper inside NK, we could darken the sky with cruise missles. And don't forget the neutron bomb that kills people but leaves infrastructure standing, and small tactical nukes. We would overwhelm NK's advancing troops with devestating air power. Dont forget, a head-on clash with a big army is our greatest strength; but it's just that we are not willing to use these weapons.
Yes it is unknown, possibly zero. But we'd begin such a war warning Kim Il that if he uses any WMD we will unleash a furious attack with own big stuff and North Korea will effectively cease to exist. Being a tyrant, I don't think he'd relish the idea of being dictator of 20 million corpses and no infrastructure whatsoever for any survivors.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.