Kim Jong-un backs down

[Nyoken]

Hope someone puts a bullet in that fat fuck soon

[Deleted]

No. I'm saying the entire world's forces largely can't even show up to the field of battle in the first place, and America's are in a sorry state because we've spent 16 years fighting the wrong wars, stupidly, and not investing in maintenance and replacement like we should have. Once again, 15 years ago we had 10,000 Tomahawk cruise missiles. Today we have around 3000. Across the whole planet. That sounds like a lot? It's not. We used nearly 900 in 2003 against Saddam Hussein. Unlike Saddam Hussein, North Korea has more artillery emplacements and air defense than we have cruise missiles.

Like let me put this in perspective for you. The British Royal Air Force has so few Helicopters, that they might as well give them names like we named our 20 strong fleet of B-2 bombers. Almost no country in the world besides America has anything approaching the logistical capabilities to move large numbers of their forces (such that they exist) to Korea. And again, only Russia, China and the US has anything that can be called a "Heavy Bomber", and only America has good ones. And no one else is planning.

North Korea is no match for the US. But we'd come out of a conflict with them having expended an enormous amount of our military power, which is already severely depleted because Americans decided to become obsessed with fighting ISIS the past four years. This is a time to rebuild our military power, not spend it, yet again, on another fools errand just so Americans can feel like they're in control and doing something.

So what exactly would happen according to you, if the US were to be pulled into a war with North Korea?

[Jimusmc]

glad to have a president that tells them if they try something stupid they'll be wiped off the earth.

we've been missing that

[Tinykong]

That's odd because comments like yours make you look like an out of control idiot.

You seem to be confused, it's spelled /r/the_donald not mmo-champion.com

[Queen of Hamsters]

Color me shocked.

The only reason it gained such traction and attention, is because the manchild currently occupying the Oval Office is too big a narcissist to do what the better men serving before him managed to do.

[Deleted]

Are you suggesting exterminating every refugee?

I can't understand why you even value your own life enough to continue on..

They should deport every Arab ref from Europe to North Korea in exchange for North Koreans to come live in Europe. That's two problems solved at once.

[Mormolyce]

No shit.

Trump and Mattis basically telling them we would erase them from the planet had an effect, it seems.

Don't be stupid, as if they would've ever gone through with it.

It was bait. Trump threatened to nuke NK and now Kim Jong Un can play that soundbyte to his people to support his narrative that they need a strongman like him to protect them from the evil Americans coming to murder them.

Publicity stunt from the start and you suckers fell right for it.

- - - Updated - - -

Whats your plant to get them through North Korean air defenses? Klingon Bird of Prey?

I was thinking scuba gear with a seagull on top like the opening scene of Dr No.

[Ghostpanther]

The last few presidents. Either appeasement or straight up not paying them any attention and letting them create weapons.

- - - Updated - - -



And tell me when Obama or Bush threatened to eradicate NK if they try anything?

Exactly. They didn't. I think Kim Jong understands he is dealing with a man now who is not just all talk.

[BuckSparkles]

You do know that the vast majority of their citizens are just innocent people, right? They didn't choose be born there.

At this point they are likely so brainwashed that saving them isn't likely.

[Deleted]

Exactly. They didn't. I think Kim Jong understands he is dealing with a man now who is not just all talk.

Except he is just all talk.

[Ghostpanther]

Except he is just all talk.

Except he isn't. :P

[Corvus]

Except he is just all talk.

Given that since he has come to power he has had his half-brother murdered in a foreign country, ordered the shelling of a South Korean island that saw 4 killed and ordered the sinking of a SK ship, the Cheonan, leaving 46 dead, I'd say that he is more than just talk.

[PACOX]

I hate to say it but any time the underdog makes forces the bigger dogs to notice, that little dog gain cred. NK backed down but only after making Trump look unhinged move forces to Guam. They played the West.

[Skroe]

So what exactly would happen according to you, if the US were to be pulled into a war with North Korea?

The US would need a minimum of 2 months to assemble everything it needed.

It presently has 2 carriers in the West Pacific, a third off the Coast of California for training, one in the Gulf, and one in the Atlantic in training. 3 others are in modest maintenance and the rest will be unavailible. It would need to move the three deployed carriers minimum (four might be better) to off the coast of Korea, and replace them elsewhere with the thre in modest maintenance. To do this would mean rapidly mobilizing several strike groups worth of personnel. Additionally the US would need to move two of the Ohio-Class cruise missile submarines to the region as well. And that's just the Navy.

The biggest logistical job is the Army. They presently have 28,000 troops in South Korea. They'd want to bolster that to well over 400,000, with all their equipment. That would mean moving a large share of the US military's combat power out of America, Europe and the Persian Gulf's pre-positioned stockpiles to Korea, via boat. It would also require the US activate it's reserves in a way that haven't been since the Gulf War. It would far larger than the Iraq War build up. About twice as large.

As far as air power is concerned, the biggest problem is that the B-2 and B-1B fleets are kind of in shambles right now as they're undergoing major upgrades (partiuclarl the B-2) that won't be completed until 2019 at the earliest. The US has some B-1Bs and lots of B-52s, but only about half the B-2 fleet is flyable at the moment due to the upgrades

Assembling all of this would take a minimum of two months, but the biggest problem is that the US just hasn't spent nearly enough money on thins to shoot over the last decade. This was actually a big debate - criticism even - of the previous few secretary of defense before Obama's last (Ash Carter) and Mattis, who both moved to correct the issue. The armed forces love spending money on networks, IT, vehicles, ships, airplanes, IT (I said it twice because they love it so much). But they actually have a real aversion to buying bombs and missiles.

The reason is rather simple: most bombs and missiles are never used. The Services will spend money on something that will likely spend most of its life in storage for a contingency, and then, once it reaches its expiration date, has to be destroyed or fired in a training. And these things are expensive. $1.2 million for a cruise missile. $400,000 for a smart bomb.

The biggest problem for the US is that munitions stockpiles are years away from returning to where they were in the mid 2000s. It would have to raid pre-positoned stockpiles, particular in Europe.

The US would make short work of North Korea. But the difficulty and expense involve would be monumental. In many ways, the single best thing Vladmir Putin and China could do is get the US bombing North Korea ASAP. Why? Because over the next few years, the US's military advantage is anticipated to narrow as Chinese and Russian weapons enter service. However starting 2024, the US lead is expected to completely explode and have us surge past our rivals as our own modernization and the 3rd Offset Strategy have new, advanced weapons in service.

Any big war will derail that, just as the Iraq War derailed the mid-2000s upgrade.

[Strawberry]

The US would need a minimum of 2 months to assemble everything it needed.

It presently has 2 carriers in the West Pacific, a third off the Coast of California for training, one in the Gulf, and one in the Atlantic in training. 3 others are in modest maintenance and the rest will be unavailible. It would need to move the three deployed carriers minimum (four might be better) to off the coast of Korea, and replace them elsewhere with the thre in modest maintenance. To do this would mean rapidly mobilizing several strike groups worth of personnel. Additionally the US would need to move two of the Ohio-Class cruise missile submarines to the region as well. And that's just the Navy.

The biggest logistical job is the Army. They presently have 28,000 troops in South Korea. They'd want to bolster that to well over 400,000, with all their equipment. That would mean moving a large share of the US military's combat power out of America, Europe and the Persian Gulf's pre-positioned stockpiles to Korea, via boat. It would also require the US activate it's reserves in a way that haven't been since the Gulf War. It would far larger than the Iraq War build up. About twice as large.

As far as air power is concerned, the biggest problem is that the B-2 and B-1B fleets are kind of in shambles right now as they're undergoing major upgrades (partiuclarl the B-2) that won't be completed until 2019 at the earliest. The US has some B-1Bs and lots of B-52s, but only about half the B-2 fleet is flyable at the moment due to the upgrades

Assembling all of this would take a minimum of two months, but the biggest problem is that the US just hasn't spent nearly enough money on thins to shoot over the last decade. This was actually a big debate - criticism even - of the previous few secretary of defense before Obama's last (Ash Carter) and Mattis, who both moved to correct the issue. The armed forces love spending money on networks, IT, vehicles, ships, airplanes, IT (I said it twice because they love it so much). But they actually have a real aversion to buying bombs and missiles.

The reason is rather simple: most bombs and missiles are never used. The Services will spend money on something that will likely spend most of its life in storage for a contingency, and then, once it reaches its expiration date, has to be destroyed or fired in a training. And these things are expensive. $1.2 million for a cruise missile. $400,000 for a smart bomb.

The biggest problem for the US is that munitions stockpiles are years away from returning to where they were in the mid 2000s. It would have to raid pre-positoned stockpiles, particular in Europe.

The US would make short work of North Korea. But the difficulty and expense involve would be monumental. In many ways, the single best thing Vladmir Putin and China could do is get the US bombing North Korea ASAP. Why? Because over the next few years, the US's military advantage is anticipated to narrow as Chinese and Russian weapons enter service. However starting 2024, the US lead is expected to completely explode and have us surge past our rivals as our own modernization and the 3rd Offset Strategy have new, advanced weapons in service.

Any big war will derail that, just as the Iraq War derailed the mid-2000s upgrade.

There would be no war between NK and US. China wouldn't allow US forces that close to its borders.
Not saying that China would defend NK against US, not a chance China would start WW3. China would most likely invade NK and make sure no american soldier sets foot on it.

[Skroe]

There would be no war between NK and US. China wouldn't allow US forces that close to its borders.
Not saying that China would defend NK against US, not a chance China would start WW3. China would most likely invade NK and make sure no american soldier sets foot on it.

I was answering a specific way in response to a specific line of questioning. I think a war is essentially an impossibility for a number of reasons.

But that being said, people saying "China will Invade" need to pay a bit more attention to the Chinese military. It isn't what you think it is.

First of all, it's not a professional force. Climbing the ranks of the officer corps is done through political connections, bribery, patronage and party loyalty, not how good you are at the job. It has no contemporary war fighting institutional knowledge.

Secondly, going with that, China has a bunch of equippment that loos modern, but it has no idea how to fight modern wars, never mind the urban conflict they'd find themselves in when they reached Pyongyang. What do I mean by that? Observe:



This is a Chineze ZBL-09 Armored Personnel Carrier, basically their version of the Stryker (but shity). This, by comparison, is the Stryker in Afghanistan. Notice something?



The Chinese ZBL-09, among other things has that ridiculous gigantic digital camo. It isn't alone.







Oooohhh! Ahhhh! Much Impressive! Except not really. Do you know why the US doesn't put digital camo on its armored vehicles? Because (a) digital camo didn't really work and (b) digital camo blown up to be the size flatscreen TVs per "block" doesn't actually do anything and is counter-intuitive to how digital camo is supposed to work.

So why does China do it? Because in the 2000s Western militaries swapped from traditional camo to variations on digital ones. The US fielded five different variants alone. It was all in vogue at the time. The War in Afghanistan and the Iraq War laid bare how completely useless it was, and Western Armed Forces are now all transitioning away from it. However Digital Camo was a symbol of military modernity of sorts.

What China is doing is saying "we're a modern fighting force", "we have a modern military, as advanced as the West". The Audience of that, is of course, the Chinese people, not the US or Russians which know how much crap that actually is. China might as well paint its tanks neon orange.

The purpose of the digital camo, with the big red stars, is for the Chinese Government to show the people the power of the state. And that's the truth of China's armed forces. The US Military exists to defend the United States and the Constitution against foreign and domestic enemies. The Chinese People's Liberation Army exists to defend the Chinese Communist Party (it is the de facto Chinese military, but is actually sworn to the Party). It is a defender of the people only so far as they do not threaten the state.

Which is to say that, at this point, this is not an Army that can fight foreign wars in any sense. They don't have the vehicles, the training, the experience, the institutional know how. Think of it like this: the PLA must garrison itself in China so the Communist Party rule is unchallenged. Does the US Army garrison itself in the US for the same purpose? Does the French Army? Of course not. Even the Russian Army isn't like that.


Experts have been saying for a good decade, and I've shared here, that the thing to watch out for with respect to China is for "their Panama". By that I mean, the analog for them, what the Panama Invasion was to the US... which is to say a near by, easy proving ground for the much larger, more complex campaign in Kuwait shortly after. The 1991 Gulf War would have been far more complicated and Messier if the US didn't do what amounted to a kind of dry run in Panama to test its post-Vietnam reforms. By extension, if China is to one day truly have an expeditionary military, it will have to have a similar "dry run" before it tries something ambitious. Something like an "intervention" in Laos or something (who knows) before it tries something bigger.

North Korea would be something bigger.

A Chinese invasion of North Korea would not be some kind of layup for them. They have things that look the part, but that means next to nothing without an experienced force to use them. It could fail or get bogged down and be a regime threatening risk to the Communist Party. Before they try that, they'll want to build confidence on somewhere else.

[HumbleDuck]

Backs down? Really? Did you really believed he is going to nuke a US territory?
This is pretty much the usual routine since the 60s ...
Nothing special to see here people.

[jdbond592]

Trump and Mattis basically telling them we would erase them from the planet had an effect, it seems.

About time somebody stood up to NK instead of cowering in fear and appeasement.

Because we are not "appeasing" him right now? Prey tell us what "action" we are taking? Is he dead? Are nukes gone? Can you tell us how any of this is different from what we had in past 30 years? Go on, WOW us! Since I don't recall NK attacking us during Obama, Clinton or Bush or even Bush Sr..do tell us! Don't hold back!

- - - Updated - - -

Backs down? Really? Did you really believed he is going to nuke a US territory?
This is pretty much the usual routine since the 60s ...
Nothing special to see here people.

But you don't understand logic of Trump voters! Obama ignored this guy, he was weak. Trump went on twitter war up with him and got his face smashed. Afterall, NK did do another test after Trump threatened him not to do it.

End result? NK will continue it's nuke operation. NK will do more missiles tests. But an average Trump voter will tell you this was a victory! Because war of words Trump escalated couldn't be backed with actual action. No fire and fury came. By raising ante, Kim got measure of Trump. A guy who talks tough but goes back to "negotiation" when it comes to real action.

[Deleted]

Did Kim just prove he's the greater man...?

But yes of course that was all Trump.

[Deleted]

If only we had a strong leader in the past it would have never had gotten this far.

And how far back do you want to go ? before the korean war ? or since 1962 when they started their nuclear program, the only reason they didn't have it sooner was thanks to the USSR and later China.
The USA has never been the detterent for them not devolping a bomb sooner but they have been and are the catalyst.
Everytime you guys go and deliver some freedom to a country the other ones not in 'your corner' get nervous and look for a way out, why do you think all those countries want nukes ? hint: it's really not to bomb their neighbours to the stoneage or drop nukes on random US cities.
Maybe if you had sane leaders NK would have never developed the bomb to start with. These so called 'strong' leaders are the reason, keep threatening countries and eventually some of them will try (and eventually succeed) in to get what they feel is the ultimate deterence from a possible US 'freedom delivery'.