• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

Clarification of U.S military view on DPRK

Joined
Apr 3, 2017
Messages
5
#1
What do you men think of what is going on with North Korea? You have experience and can make sense of all what President Trump has said and what it means for our military. Is a war coming? I ask just because it is nice to know as a citizen, and someone who would fight for our country. I am of course not asking for actual inside knowledge if anyone thinks that, just asking how I should interpret what I see on the news, and how serious our military is taking this threat.
 

Marauder06

Intel Enabler
Moderator
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
8,523
Location
CONUS
#2
That's an interesting question as only your fourth post on this site.

None of here speak for the "US military." All of us, even those on active duty, are here in our capacities as private citizens. In my capacity as a private citizen, my answer to your question is that the decision to go to war or not is probably above the pay grade of those of us here. It's certainly above mine.

With regard to how you should interpret the news, I suggest you view them in context, taking a look at the source and the history of the issue, using multiple sources to make up your own mind about what is happening now and what is likely to happen in the future.

For example, North Korea fires off a bunch of missiles every time we do an exercise like Ulchi Focus Lens. Most new presidents want to talk tough about thorny international issues like China, North Korea, or Israel/Palestine. None of that necessarily puts us closer to conflict.

As far as readiness goes, you'll find out more details when you join up. In the meantime, rest assured that our military takes all threats seriously, from rogue states to non-state actors to global warming, and plans accordingly.
 
Joined
Apr 3, 2017
Messages
5
#3
Thank you, and sorry I meant no disrespect or anything wrong in wording, I just did not know how exactly to ask the question the way I intended. I will take that advice!
 

Ocoka

Combined Action
Verified Military
Joined
Jun 29, 2014
Messages
3,937
Location
Decisive Terrain
#10
What do you men think of what is going on with North Korea? You have experience and can make sense of all what President Trump has said and what it means for our military. Is a war coming? I ask just because it is nice to know as a citizen, and someone who would fight for our country. I am of course not asking for actual inside knowledge if anyone thinks that, just asking how I should interpret what I see on the news, and how serious our military is taking this threat.
You've just witnessed the science of thread de-evolution. ;-)

In all seriousness, it's typically in character of North Korea to try to antagonize S. Korea, Japan and consequently the US through threats or acts of aggression. This has been going on for decades. It's like a little kid poking a stick at a caged tiger. Our usual reaction is to issue angry statements or conduct naval exercises in the Sea of Japan. And eventually the whole matter just fizzles out.

Whether or not we go to war depends entirely on how much risk North Korean leadership is willing to take. Should the day ever come that NK launches a serious attack against S. Korea, you can pretty much bet the US will step in with at least a massive non-nuclear air and missile response.

Kim would have to be insane to try something like that. Oh, wait...:wall:
 

Devildoc

Verified Military
Joined
Nov 3, 2015
Messages
1,783
Location
Durham, NC
#11
The day NK attacks SK, NK ceases to exist. There will be a whole lot of property in NK on the cheap for South Koreans who wish to get some elbow room. NK knows that.
 
Last edited:

CQB

Australian SOF
Verified SOF
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
1,422
Location
Up on Cripple Creek
#12
The issues for me as a dispassionate civilian observer are firstly the flood of refugees on the likelihood of armed conflict. China will be the first to deal with this problem and as has been noted in open source, to deal with this they have tightened the NK/Chines border. Sth. Korea and possibly Japan also have a problem if north Koreans can get to boats. The primary strategic issue is, if in the case of jus in bello is realised, is that the US will be cheek by jowl against a Chinese border after the dust settles. This is not a circumstance China would want or wish for. Historically, the Koreans have wanted a unified peninsula, but it looks to be a way off. Best bet is to break out the cotton wool and apply liberally. The Trump administration has lately has a penchants for surprise attacks (Syria & MOAD) and North Korea may well fit the bill & as all options are 'on the table' I wouldn't dismiss it.
 

Ocoka

Combined Action
Verified Military
Joined
Jun 29, 2014
Messages
3,937
Location
Decisive Terrain
#13
According to Globe Magazine, SEAL Team Six has been assigned the mission to assassinate Kim Jong-un by infiltrating his secret underground bunker. Just reporting what I read in the supermarket check-out lane. :thumbsup:
 

Diamondback 2/2

Infantry
Verified Military
Joined
Jan 24, 2008
Messages
6,215
Location
Texas
#14
My real opinion on NK and the current situation is, yes something is going to go down. ROK, Japan and China don't want a psychopath thirty something year old with a nuclear weapon capable of going anywhere. Yes I get it, they figured out how to make a bomb, but the mode of delivery is really the ultimate concern.

What I personally see happening, heavy pressure from ROK, USA, China to basically blockade all commerce in or out. Backed with missile defense systems and preempt strike option. Objective here would be to obviously bring NK to its knees and get NK to disarm and stop all nuclear activities to include a possible leadership change.

I think the bullshit has gone as far as it's going to go, so they will either bring them to the table, or we will collectively smack them into shape. Do I think we will use nukes on NK? Not unless they use them first. But that doesn't mean we won't wipeout their deployment capabilities, their military capabilities and leave their government in shambles, via use of conventional weapons. I agree China being part of the coalition is key, and they would have a significant role in the execution of operations and rebuilding of NK. Hell a unified Koera under the ROK system would be beneficial to China, opening up better trade and sales of raw materials, etc.

Anyway, I've watched the back and forth since the 80's. I can honestly say that this is the first time Ive personally seen China show interest in a possible coalition approach, first time Japan has been ramping up their forces and the US has been extremely strong in its words and show of force.

My $.02
 

AWP

Formerly Known as Freefalling
Administrator
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
13,144
Location
Not Afghanistan
#15
I wouldn't be surprised if Trump traded acceptance of China's man-made and disputed islands for a Chinese coup/ invasion in NK with the US providing some form of support, especially ballistic missile defense and some limited airstrikes. Chinese troops supported by the strategic use of US airpower? It wouldn't surprise me. The wildcard is NK doing something to SK feeling like it has nothing to lose and wants to take as many with it as possible.
 

CQB

Australian SOF
Verified SOF
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
1,422
Location
Up on Cripple Creek
#16
That's quite an interesting scenario, given that the PRC is becoming increasingly dominant in the region and could increase their dominance with that outcome. But downstream, what would peace look like? I'm not too sure Koreans would like to be ruled by Han Chinese, given that could be the logical outcome. Would the US give up a long term strategic ally?
 

AWP

Formerly Known as Freefalling
Administrator
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
13,144
Location
Not Afghanistan
#17
That's quite an interesting scenario, given that the PRC is becoming increasingly dominant in the region and could increase their dominance with that outcome. But downstream, what would peace look like? I'm not too sure Koreans would like to be ruled by Han Chinese, given that could be the logical outcome. Would the US give up a long term strategic ally?
To me, when I look at military options for NK the only scenario I envision is total destruction and occupation. There's no building democracy/ partnering with local allies crap....loot and pillage, kill and destroy. I'd like for it to never come to that, but how else do you end NK's nuke program or force that little shit out of power or anything else with a peaceful outcome?

When you look at force you either have doomsday scenarios or really bizarre options. There aren't any sane answers where NK is concerned.
 

Ocoka

Combined Action
Verified Military
Joined
Jun 29, 2014
Messages
3,937
Location
Decisive Terrain
#18
That's quite an interesting scenario, given that the PRC is becoming increasingly dominant in the region and could increase their dominance with that outcome. But downstream, what would peace look like? I'm not too sure Koreans would like to be ruled by Han Chinese, given that could be the logical outcome. Would the US give up a long term strategic ally?

I can't imagine the US abandoning or dealing ourselves out of an almost 70-year Mutual Defense Treaty and a 113-billion per annum trade partner with whom we have an almost sacred relationship...but who knows? And surely Japan would oppose expanded PRC influence/control on the peninsula.


To me, when I look at military options for NK the only scenario I envision is total destruction and occupation. There's no building democracy/ partnering with local allies crap....loot and pillage, kill and destroy. I'd like for it to never come to that, but how else do you end NK's nuke program or force that little shit out of power or anything else with a peaceful outcome?

When you look at force you either have doomsday scenarios or really bizarre options. There aren't any sane answers where NK is concerned.

I wonder if (and it's a big IF) a decapitation strike would be on the table for Trump? Too many unknowns, I suspect, and an intel black hole. But Kim is, more than most dictators, the true head of the snake. The German people worshipped Hitler. Kim's power seems based solely on the abject fear he generates in the top tiers of NK government. But if the Trump Administration tinkered with some EOs, made a few amendments, the legal aspects could be ironed out. Presuming we could actually target the guy, the big question is what kind of reaction would ensue? I think we could rule out any popular involvement, the people are virtual automatons when it comes to political expression...but would Kim's sister take the reins? Would the generals sue for peace or launch nukes at Seoul? How would the PRC react? Not well, I imagine.

Ultimately I think you're probably right. All or nothing.
 

Il Duce

Intel Enabler
Verified SOF
Joined
Jan 10, 2014
Messages
775
Location
New York
#20
To me, when I look at military options for NK the only scenario I envision is total destruction and occupation. There's no building democracy/ partnering with local allies crap....loot and pillage, kill and destroy. I'd like for it to never come to that, but how else do you end NK's nuke program or force that little shit out of power or anything else with a peaceful outcome?

When you look at force you either have doomsday scenarios or really bizarre options. There aren't any sane answers where NK is concerned.
I think the regime is no where near as stable as it was in the last two generations. I can see civil war and dissolution of the country that way. Not a peasant uprising - factions within the government fighting. When you look at how power has become a zero sum game - with the executions of top military folks and family members - I think the calculus for leaders becomes different. If you're in the ruling junta you go from disagreement to ready for all out war in a snap now, because any disagreement or shift is grounds for execution by AA gun. Of course, in that scenario control of nuclear sites becomes the ultimate bargaining chip for internal actors.