The US May Attack North Korea In Two Weeks

Market Oracle ^ | 6-3-2017 | John Mauldin

[ALASKA]

Maybe not now. The NORKS talk a lot about EMP. I think that is the most probable threat from them. And that is probably the worst possible. We didn’t test the ICBM killer a few days ago for nothing.

But, if they are not a threat now, they easily will be soon. I would hate war, but sometimes preemptive strikes are necessary.......horrific, but necessary.

[Thud]

The Japanese newspaper Asahi Shmbun, in its May 23, 2017 edition, has an article titled "Xi asked Trump for '100 days' to deal with North Korea Problem."

That would take things out to August.

[Tallguy]

OK. Bad old days. Post-Vietnam. Carrier force used to be 15. Then it dropped to 12 for a long time. Then 11. Now 10.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

The US May Attack North Korea In Two Weeks

Other things that may happen in two weeks.

Kathy Griffin may develop a soul.

The Moon may fall out of the sky.

Democrats may come to love America.

The IRS may start observing "innocent until proven guilty".

[Tallguy]

The Norks may have a workable IRBM that could reach the Pacific Northwest cities. It ain’t all that far, Great Circle Route. Do you wait until they have a true solid-fuel rocket that gives them a solid retaliatory capability? I don’t.

[DakotaGator]

No. Marines are embarked with the Amphibious Ready Groups. The Army also has an amphibious mission and significant amphibious assets.

Viewing the deployment of both these assets is a key indicator of the nature of our anticipated operations.

Think of it this way; Navy/Marine amphibious assault establishes a Force Beachhead for a demonstration or raid. Followup Army amphibious forces reinforce and breakout for invasion operations. This is more a WWII scenario. But it provides a general idea.

[blam]

"Nope, no attack. The new South Korean president is an appeaser. He would ask the US to leave before risking war."

I worry that you're correct. He was upset to learn that two more THAAD units were moved into SK without his knowledge/approval.

[blam]

"When, if ever, did the U.S.N. have more aircraft carriers than at present (10)? Alright, before the deactivation of the USS Enterprise, we had eleven. But before that?"

I read that at the end of WW2, the US had 109 carriers in the Pacific...albeit, many were smaller carriers.

Also, I found this:

"The US Navy started WW2 with 7 aircraft carriers. Another roughly 160 aircraft carriers were built during the war, including 24 Essex-class fleet carriers capable of carrying 90 to 110 aircraft"

[blam]

"Yeah that helps a lot. Next time just publish the battle plans"

You're kidding. By the time we know anything, it's already old news to the North Koreans.

[Yosemitest]

"By the time we know anything, it's already old news to the North Koreans."

On what basics do you ASSUME that ?
Have you EVER work for "SKIVY NINE" ?

[DakotaGator]

Whatever South Korea's amphibious capabilities, they are not applicable to my comments. Those comments apply to U.S. intentions. Should we be concentrating our amphibious forces off of North Korea along with Carrier Battle Groups, that is a far more serious signal than just Carrier Battle Groups, which is serious indeed.

Carrier Battle Groups alone signal air strike operations. Carrier Battle Groups with Amphibious Forces signal invasion.

Now it's possible for our Carrier Battle Groups to support an ally’s, such as South Korea, amphibious/ground operations. But this type of combined operations is supremely difficult. Don't look for it to be done at the drop of a hat.

[TXnMA]

"Near the DMZ, NK artillery is parked in caves... "

Ideal targets for airburst thermobaric FAE or near-contact slurry (MOAB) type bombs...

[vooch]

pre emotive war requires the absolute highest burden of proof. We aren’t even close in the case of the Norks.

[alexander_busek]

alexander_busek: When, if ever, did the U.S.N. have more aircraft carriers than at present (10)? Alright, before the deactivation of the USS Enterprise, we had eleven. But before that?

blam: I read that at the end of WW2, the US had 109 carriers in the Pacific...albeit, many were smaller carriers. Also, I found this: "The US Navy started WW2 with 7 aircraft carriers. Another roughly 160 aircraft carriers were built during the war, including 24 Essex-class fleet carriers capable of carrying 90 to 110 aircraft"

So... You're saying that you don't have any problem with those figures that you "read" or "found" (where, exactly?)? Those figures that you dug up don't sound the least bit... implausible to you?

Another poster here cites there having been 15 super-carriers in service at the same time - though I suspect that some of those might actually have been mothballed.

109 - even smaller (Independence Class or Saipan Class) carriers in the Pacific, alone, by the end of WW II? I'd have to see the actual data on that.

Regards,

[2001convSVT]

I agree with your logic, a litmus test of US intentions for a strike leading to renewed hostilities would be the mobilization of US ground forces from the US mainland to the Korean theater. I have not heard of any movement of soldiers or marine units.

[DakotaGator]

Nor have I heard of US ground force movements.

The theater of operations is being prepared. Now we get to observe events as they unfold.

[huldah1776]

Would a smaller EMP over NK do anything? They don’t have lights on at night, from the images.

[alexander_busek]

Would a smaller EMP over NK do anything? They don’t have lights on at night, from the images.

An EMP over NK would be devastating!

Both of their television sets would be knocked out, and all three of their street lights would cease functioning!

Seriously: I'd wager that an EMP over any comparably-sized U.S. city would result in a much more severe breakdown than one over Pyongyang.

Regards,

[huldah1776]

ROTFL, hey, at least two tvs would mean it worked!

[huldah1776]

I was thinking about this yesterday. I bet kim is the only one who can push the button. Is their system that hack proof?