• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

POLL: How will our ground troops do against N. Korea?

amdhunter

amdhunter

Lifer
I wonder how well our troops would do against an enemy that can manage to fight back for once, and not just be easy shots like the Iraqi people are.

I doubt the North Koreans will be throwing bottle rockets, or using cheap land mines to take out their targets. North Korea will be bringing out the big guns, and their elite fighting ninja skills onto the playing field, and give our troops a real good run for the money.

In the end, I believe our troops will pull it off, but only because of air support, and high end missle technologies. There's no way for them to win without it.

What does ATOT think?
 
Originally posted by: lxskllr
Yea, because we did so well the last time...
Click to expand...

Reason we did badly (initially) is because the North Koreans counter attacked with seasoned Chinese battalions armed with soviet weaponry and Russian advisers.

The army intelligence tasked with surveying enemy movements failed to note this. Although it is to be noted that USMC Companies trapped between the Chinese and the Sea, took a mountain pass between the two and bravely fought off both the cold and the Chinese raiders, despite not being adequately prepared for the winter.


Good try at your own history lesson though, better luck next time.
 
Originally posted by: TehMac
Originally posted by: lxskllr
Yea, because we did so well the last time...
Click to expand...

Reason we did badly is because the North Koreans counter attacked with seasoned Chinese battalions armed with soviet weaponry and Russian advisers.

The army intelligence tasked with surveying enemy movements failed to note this. Although it is to be noted that USMC Companies trapped between the Chinese and the Sea, took a mountain pass between the two and bravely fought off both the cold and the Chinese raiders, despite not being adequately prepared for the winter.


Good try at your own history lesson though, better luck next time.
Click to expand...

And you think that won't happen again because?
 
Originally posted by: lxskllr
Originally posted by: TehMac
Originally posted by: lxskllr
Yea, because we did so well the last time...
Click to expand...

Reason we did badly is because the North Koreans counter attacked with seasoned Chinese battalions armed with soviet weaponry and Russian advisers.

The army intelligence tasked with surveying enemy movements failed to note this. Although it is to be noted that USMC Companies trapped between the Chinese and the Sea, took a mountain pass between the two and bravely fought off both the cold and the Chinese raiders, despite not being adequately prepared for the winter.


Good try at your own history lesson though, better luck next time.
Click to expand...

And you think that won't happen again because?
Click to expand...

Russia isnt a superpower like they were back then and china is our ally.
 
Originally posted by: lxskllr
And you think that won't happen again because?
Click to expand...

Let's use a little common sense: China has been most earnest (though not enough unsurprisingly) in their attempts to talk North Korea out of becoming a nuclear state. The U.S. invading North Korea and installing an attempted free state right at their door step would make them a little nervous considering their own strife with Tibet.

However, there's not much China could do about it because their own money is derived from business investment that has cropped up in the last 20-30* years. If China declared war on the United States, they might have some good momentum, but as soon as all that investment money has ceased (as it likely would, either the U.S. govt would impose sanctions or, businesses would see the real estate as no longer monetarily viable and withdraw).

As much as socialists would like to deny it, free market trade and globalization is the biggest proponent of trade, and the biggest revolution for peace. This makes socialists unhappy because not only does it collide with their own agenda, but it means that Classical liberalism, not the neo-liberal garbage that arrived in the 19th century, is the real predicate toward a modern peaceful world.



Notice how 20-30 years does not equal 50 years? Korean War = 1950-1953.

Also as a further amendum, it is important to note that once more troops had arrived in Korea and with skilled use by MacArthur, NATO developed the "Meatgrinder," a tactical implementation first used in the West in World War II. This devastating combination of tanks, artillery (of all sorts) and infantrymen armed almost completely with automatic weapons (to counter the AK-47s the Chinese were using) helped create a massive slaughterhouse of Chinese within Korea.
 
They'd do as well as the politicians let them do. We'd easily kick ass on both the NKs and whatever China sends to help. The reason we struggled in the 50s was that Truman was a little girly-man and wouldn't allow the military to do what was necessary to win. That war would have been over in 16 months if the US leadership had shown some guts. It wouldn't be any different this time around. The military would win easily and Obama wouldn't let them.
 
Originally posted by: TehMac
Originally posted by: lxskllr
And you think that won't happen again because?
Click to expand...

Let's use a little common sense: China has been most earnest (though not enough unsurprisingly) in their attempts to talk North Korea out of becoming a nuclear state. The U.S. invading North Korea and installing an attempted free state right at their door step would make them a little nervous considering their own strife with Tibet.

However, there's not much China could do about it because their own money is derived from business investment that has cropped up in the last 20-30 years. If China declared war on the United States, they might have some good momentum, but as soon as all that investment money has ceased (as it likely would, either the U.S. govt would impose sanctions or, businesses would see the real estate as no longer monetarily viable and withdraw).

As much as socialists would like to deny it, free market trade and globalization is the biggest proponent of trade, and the biggest revolution for peace. This makes socialists unhappy because not only does it collide with their own agenda, but it means that Classical liberalism, not the neo-liberal garbage that arrived in the 19th century, is the real predicate toward a modern peaceful world.
Click to expand...

Perhaps... I'm not convinced they'd be so closely allied with us once we were at their back door.
 
Originally posted by: lxskllr
Perhaps... I'm not convinced they'd be so closely allied with us once we were at their back door.
Click to expand...

it has nothing to do with alliances. That's all political jargon that means nothing anyway. It is the reality that China will be unable to do anything at all if Western investment, their chief (if not only at this point) source of capital for the last 30 years (which enabled them to develop their own arsenal to the extent it is now) dries up.

The amount of GDP % spending the Chinese would need to fully rival the United States would have to be quadrupled. The resulting taxes placed upon Chinese industry would further cripple any domestic commercialism.
 
Originally posted by: amdhunter
I wonder how well our troops would do against an enemy that can manage to fight back for once, and not just be easy shots like the Iraqi people are.

I doubt the North Koreans will be throwing bottle rockets, or using cheap land mines to take out their targets. North Korea will be bringing out the big guns, and their elite fighting ninja skills onto the playing field, and give our troops a real good run for the money.

In the end, I believe our troops will pull it off, but only because of air support, and high end missle technologies. There's no way for them to win without it.

What does ATOT think?
Click to expand...

They may put up a better fight than the Iraqis, but I don't think you understand just how much larger our military is than theirs. Troops are soft, it's the machines that do the work. And we have a huge advantage there.

 
First of all, the Iraqis themselves didn't put up much of a fight. The ones who did were the ones who had a lot to lose under Hussein's roost; namely the Iraqi Guard and a few crack units of lesser caliber. The assholes putting up the fight are chiefly out of state middle eastern people.

Middle class folks who feel that Allah calls them to fight in a country not their own against an enemy whom they grudge for being so wealthy, and they're hurting the people they claim to defend: The Iraqis themselves.

The irony of it all.
 
You can't really compare a US soldier to an Iraqi. it's like comparing an African country to Canada... I don't know if that makes sense.
 
Maybe it will play out like a video game.
We could do Crysis, and send in a single man to take down the entire nation.

Or we could do Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory. The North Koreans attack completely by surprise, with American troops too far away to help. The South Koreans become entrenched in Seoul, and manage to push the North Koreans back after a couple days. North Korea then goes to use nukes or something, but super spy Sam Fisher disables them before anything can happen. Then he uncovers the mystery, and the United States looks like a good guy instead of the aggressor due to rogue elements of the US and Japanese militaries.
 

American will have their ass handed to them if they go into N. Korea, because that is China back yard.

 
Originally posted by: ja1484

Ground troops? We still use those?
Click to expand...

No war can be fought without ground troops. Unless, of course, you're going for destruction, and that's it.

War is typically a territory game. Cannot hold territory without ground troops. They are the ones who go in once an area has been shelled to rubble to clear it out of remaining enemy, and hold that ground and establish new positions. This then becomes a stronghold, which is used for resupply and troops maneuver from there toward new territory. Every true war is like that, at least wars with States. Wars with non-State actors are tough, and that is where we failed in the beginning of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We learned, we developed new methods, and things have been turning around since that point. But it'll be tough to completely kill the insurgent effort, because it's not a real entity with a physical location. At least, not until those of Islamic faith can fight back against the weak who are using different interpretations.

And this whole thing with North Korea? We have different styles now that are capable of, in theory, quickly bending to the situation on the ground.

A State-based military, would struggle against the US, if they were alone in the effort. War with state-based military is every much a logistical chess game as it is a story of bloodshed.

The technology we have now would thoroughly provide supremacy on the ground from the air, at least for the most part. It would be up to ground efforts to make use of that in an on-demand fashion.
 
Originally posted by: iGas

American will have their ass handed to them if they go into N. Korea, because that is China back yard.
Click to expand...

Politically, it would be China's most retarded move to back up North Korea in a war with the U.S. The world would come crashing down on China, and as much as they are prepared for war with a single state, and likely crush them, they'd be the center of everything. The U.N. would make sure of that, and economically, China really isn't in a position to make that gamble.
China can support itself to some extent, but they depend heavily on the U.S. and most of the Western world for trade. Trade sanctions would crush them.

And as much has been talked about China being a communist state, surprisingly they have been slowly moving toward a more modern incorporation of socialism in a democratic government.

As much as I greatly fear China ever being involved in a war with the U.S., I don't quite expect anything if we were to declare war on N.K.

But actual support from China, could prove interesting. Likely they'd just be there, not wanting to deny or support the U.S., and the world essentially through the U.N..
We'd have the likely support from S. Korea, but that leaves a small front, attacking through a DMZ. It'd be entirely a Naval landing scenario from the Sea of Japan on the East and Korea Bay on the West. Korea Bay landing spots would be hell most likely, since Pyongyang is less than 50km from the West shore.
But using Korea Bay and the Yellow Sea, would be a nightmare if China were to decide to provide support for N.K.
 
Originally posted by: amdhunter
I wonder how well our troops would do against an enemy that can manage to fight back for once, and not just be easy shots like the Iraqi people are.

I doubt the North Koreans will be throwing bottle rockets, or using cheap land mines to take out their targets. North Korea will be bringing out the big guns, and their elite fighting ninja skills onto the playing field, and give our troops a real good run for the money.

In the end, I believe our troops will pull it off, but only because of air support, and high end missle technologies. There's no way for them to win without it.

What does ATOT think?
Click to expand...

I think you're an asshole that has no respect for the military. With any luck, your house will take the first nuke.

Now go cry to the mods about me being mean to you.
 
Originally posted by: destrekor
Originally posted by: iGas

American will have their ass handed to them if they go into N. Korea, because that is China back yard.
Click to expand...

Politically, it would be China's most retarded move to back up North Korea in a war with the U.S. The world would come crashing down on China, and as much as they are prepared for war with a single state, and likely crush them, they'd be the center of everything. The U.N. would make sure of that, and economically, China really isn't in a position to make that gamble.
China can support itself to some extent, but they depend heavily on the U.S. and most of the Western world for trade. Trade sanctions would crush them.

And as much has been talked about China being a communist state, surprisingly they have been slowly moving toward a more modern incorporation of socialism in a democratic government.

As much as I greatly fear China ever being involved in a war with the U.S., I don't quite expect anything if we were to declare war on N.K.

But actual support from China, could prove interesting. Likely they'd just be there, not wanting to deny or support the U.S., and the world essentially through the U.N..
We'd have the likely support from S. Korea, but that leaves a small front, attacking through a DMZ. It'd be entirely a Naval landing scenario from the Sea of Japan on the East and Korea Bay on the West. Korea Bay landing spots would be hell most likely, since Pyongyang is less than 50km from the West shore.
But using Korea Bay and the Yellow Sea, would be a nightmare if China were to decide to provide support for N.K.
Click to expand...
The US & China have very deep economic ties therefore it will hurt both countries therefore N. Korea is a touchy subject with both administrations.

And, it would be foolish to trust China.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top