Sailors aboard the US Navy Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson in the western Pacific Ocean. Reuters/ U.S. Navy/Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Sean M. Castellano/Handout
Business Insider/Mauldin Economics: GEORGE FRIEDMAN: A US attack on North Korea is imminent
The US is preparing to attack North Korea, according to Geopolitical Futures founder George Friedman — setting the stage for a difficult, messy war with potentially catastrophic consequences.
Speaking Monday to a rapt audience at the 2017 Strategic Investment Conference in Orlando, Friedman said that while it was unlikely the US would take action before President Donald Trump returns home at the weekend, North Korea's actions appeared to have "offered the US no alternative" to a clash.
According to Geopolitical Futures analysis, evidence is mounting that the enmity between the two is escalating to a point where war is inevitable.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: I do not see such an attack happening .... even with 2 aircraft carrier strike groups in the region. Any decision to launch a war of choice against North Korea must involve a massive deployment of naval assets (at least 3 aircraft carriers), air assets (B-2 bombers and a large number of bombers and fighters), and ground forces. This deployment will not go unnoticed. Congress will demand a say. U.S. allies will demand a say. And more importantly .... the South Korean and Japanese governments will demand a say. And from this vantage point .... if push comes to shove .... I am willing to bet that none of these "partners" will be willing to go to war.
10 comments:
Aircraft carriers would be targets for large surface to surface missiles. They are nice to use when no large U.S. bases are present. In relatively hot war zones they make great targets. CVNs are not expendable.
This is not one of those cases where aircraft carriers are needed. The U.S. has large military bases with air force assets in Korea, Japan, and Guam. Given the size of the Korean military, the 30,000 or so U.S. troops would only be a small part of the action.
When needed, the U.S. could fly over additional aircraft and base them outside the combat zone. These aircraft could be employed as needed. There are no serious modern aircraft in the NK inventory that could challenge U.S. or Korean air superiority.
So, I would not look to putting the majority of the functional U.S. carriers off Korea as the make or break platforms needed as a predicate for war.
The one important issue not discussed is the shortage of bombs. Recent stories indicate that U.S. use against ISIS et al. is so high that shortages exist. Can U.S. munitions suppliers provide sufficient munitions to allow the AF to wage a real war in Korea and small wars as well?
I agree, the attack with 500 odd cruise missiles and the 2 carrier airwings along with b1, b2 bombers can initiate an attack whilst further assests are brought into play.
Trump will not telegraph everything and getting congressional approval will tell Kim all he needs to know.
I agree, the attack with 500 odd cruise missiles and the 2 carrier airwings along with b1, b2 bombers can initiate an attack whilst further assests are brought into play.
Trump will not telegraph everything and getting congressional approval will tell Kim all he needs to know.
LMFAO,
Friedman was STRATFOR, for decades.
Sometimes, I think he's still at heart a hardline Hungarian Communist out to destroy the US through bad advice.
At othertimes, I think he's still just another conman selling highly lucrative fear to the gullible.
Suppose its best to ket kim have his nukes and deal with him in 3 years when it isnt just rhetoric lmfao
LMFAO,
Kim already has nukes
Not an icbm, thats the issue thats the reason why the u.s is running out of time , the intermediate range can be shot down they are not the trigger lol.
The carriers are just for show. The question is who is the intended audience.
BH...exactly!
Seconded.
Post a Comment