KCNA
Michael Peck, Task & Purpose/National Interest: Here’s Exactly Why War With North Korea Would Be Hell, According To New War Games
If war erupts with North Korea, then the U.S. military will have problems, according to a series of war games conducted by the RAND Corporation.
Invading North Korea to capture or destroy Kim Jong-un’s nuclear arsenal, or to knock out artillery batteries threatening Seoul, would overstretch and deplete American and South Korean forces. More ominously, this could also trigger Chinese military intervention.
RAND focused on the ability of the U.S. military—and especially the U.S. Army, which sponsored the research—to respond to three potential issues: the threat of North Korea’s nuclear weapons, the ability of North Korean conventional artillery to devastate Seoul, and the military and diplomatic challenges of securing Pyongyang’s nuclear arsenal should the Communist regime collapse and North Korea degenerate into civil war.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: The use of nuclear weapons is my worst case scenario (obviously). China intervening and engaging their military against U.S. and South Korean forces is my second worst scenario .... because it would only spread, and its impact will be geopolitical on the economic, military, and political fronts.
21 comments:
Is it better to wait until a NK nuke tipped missile knocked off course by crappy USA ABM to impact and vaporize a Canadian city? That should be part of the risk management equation.
Direct USA/China warfare? Why? What is in it for China?
Sometimes one has to go to war to prevent worse outcomes.
In fact China might welcome a USA war with North Korea to weaken an already expended power. China understands how to make the board work and move into the subsequent vacuum.
As for establishment war games, GIGO.
GIGO but what do you offer instead? More GIGO
Realistic inputs that factor in real world desired outcomes or unavoidable outcomes. Having been active in modelling, I have seen manipulation of inputs to make outcomes meet expectations or make a given outcome undesirable. What are your modeling creds?
the usual bluster from one who will stay home and whack away at keyboard among other items....China will not sit back as an uninterested party. They did not in 1950 and there is no reason why now...North Korea sits on their doorstep, and they will respond in some manner. North Korea, oddly, is more interested in South Korea and Japan and the area in general than they are in Canada. Even Trump brushes Canada aside
Perhaps you are a person who sits home and whacks away at what? Cannot work away at what is not there. And we just heard from the Canadian government that you folks were polite and willing to discuss things. Small hands small mind.
Dan From Madison Says:
January 22nd, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Fred Lapides – I see you have the same IP address as Joseph Hill. What a surprise. Not. Can’t you go crap in someone else’s sandbox
How is it bluster?, he is correct and Kim's attitude of willing to bend over shows that Kim knows he would last a couple of weeks like most non fantasy scenarios predict.
Yes
Next?
Dan From Madison Says:
January 22nd, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Fred Lapides – I see you have the same IP address as Joseph Hill. What a surprise. Not. Can’t you go crap in someone else’s sandbox
oh wow smith does that make you something now?Should I be impressed ( maybe when I was 1e2 )Big man behind a smartmouth o look at me I have been abroad as a technician i'm so bad ass. Not. Like I told you before smith if you need to announce it then your basically weak as piss. Not an operator,just a scumbag with a disease that needs the blessing of mercy
Anon "Sometimes one has to go to war to prevent worse outcomes."
Keep in mind that the US has been at war now for almost 70 years? Is the world any better for all that death and destruction. Is the US any better for all that death and destruction? Not bloody likely but some American industrial giants (WIC) are doing very well.
Bob: Excellent point. However, just because careerists and industrialists destroyed the USA credibility about the need for war in certain defined cases, that does not remove the credibility of the point. In WW2 a lot of money was made off the war including charitable organizatins, soft drink companies, and tobacco companies. That did not reduce the need to fight the war.
When a country has a gun to its head the pathway is often clear.
Aizino Smith, you vomited out a lot of words that mean nothing. You are an admirer of baby killers and that says it all.
Post a Comment