US `can beat' North Korea (Gen'l Pace)

[UpInArms]

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,18030575%255E663,00.html

SEOUL – The US and South Korean could defeat North Korea in a war, America's top soldier said yesterday.

His statement followed an assessment by the chief of US intelligence that North Korea, together with Iran, was still a "state of highest concern" to the US because of its nuclear programs – though al-Qaida was the top security threat.

Earlier, the two Koreas announced they would hold general-level military talks for the first time in nearly two years.

The US has about 30,000 troops in South Korea with about 690,000 South Korean troops. North Korea has most of its million-strong military near the fortified Demilitarised Zone that divides the peninsula.

"We are fully capable today of defeating any North Korean aggression and we will maintain that capacity," General Peter Pace said.

<snip>

North and South Korea are technically still at war because the 1950-1953 Korean War ended in a truce and not a peace treaty.

...more...

Well! I guess that means that Congress would not have to give Dimson any more "war powers" then!

[reality based]

1. Well, that's sure "comforting" information, General.

Reminds me of the Air Force general in Dr. Strangelove.

[RaleighNCDUer]

16. "20, 30 million. Tops."

[Strelnikov_]

20. . . Uh . . Depending On The Breaks"

[shoelace414]

2. yea.. and they have nukes.

[leveymg]

3. Pace worries me. What do we really know about him?

Is he one who would tell Dubya what he wants to hear, and do the neocon's bidding, even though he knows we couldn't possibly "win" a war against N. Korea or Iran without escalating to nuclear weapons? Does he think nuclear and CB wars are winnable?

If he does, we're in for something so terrible it makes my head hurt to think about it.

[Tempest]

8. We know he doesn't like political cartoons critical of the military

He signed the Chief of Staff letter to the Washington Post regarding Tom Toles cartoon about RumsFAILed.

[leveymg]

15. Patton used to bitch to Stars&Stripes about criticism he took personally

Hope that's not his model. McArthur would not be a good one either. Both had to be relieved of duty because they wanted "victory" on their own terms, regardless of the cost.

I like Ike. He thought strategically, and managed to minimize casualties.

[NativeTexan]

4. Of course we could, but.......

....at what cost? Most believe that North Korea has balistic missles that can reach Kuleeforneeah, and nukes to boot. We could wipe them off the face of the map, but with SO much capital tied up in Iraq...ANY new war is a disaster looking for a place to happen.

[Tempest]

7. North Korea has missiles that will reach the U.S.

They tested one two years ago which would easily reach California.

[leveymg]

13. Please cite a source for that info.

Thanks.

[Tempest]

34. See post #31

Then read this:

http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/030408.htm

[RaleighNCDUer]

17. Don't think so. That was a test over the Sea of Japan. Range

wasn't anywhere near trans-Pacific.

Their longest range missiles might reach Alaska, and could take out US bases in Japan, but not continental US.

[leveymg]

18. That's my understanding, as well. Thanks

[madmark]

31. during a test they overshot the sea of japan and missile ended up

breaking up over alaska. while they haven proven it with a test yet, continued refinements of their missile tech will put their range to the CA Coast. I suspect they have this range now given that several years have past since they hit alaska. Put a warhead on those things and we are fucked. That's why this Iraq thing is so asinine for us to be pissing away energy, money, blood, and good will on. The fake reason for invading Iraq really exists as to N. Korea; in fact with NK's missiles its 10 times worse than that the fake Iraq reason.

[FogerRox]

35. lets examine the Potential use of a nuke by N. Korea

1) use it on the penninsula
2) Strike capability against the USA.

Lets break down the Strike at the USA.
1) retaliatory strike
2) 1st strike

Well it's likely N. Korea wont have anything left to shoot after a US 1st strike, so they might as weel use it or lose it -- right? SO the retaliatory strike is so much rice pudding.

Lets look at first strike--- N. Korea takes out 6 US cities with the 6 warheads, that we know they have. What Happens next? Ahhhhh what happens to N. Korea? TOAST is what happens. There is no N. Korea, thats what happens.

All this seems to indicate that N. Korea is now left with # 1)
"use it on the penninsula". Lets bring China into the picture.

What it comes down to is blackmailing the International comunity, or/and blackmarket sales, which I doubt.

[leveymg]

10. That depends upon how one defines victory.

There's zero chance of winning according to the definition offered by the Powell Doctrine of short, low-casualty wars that succeed quickly in destroying enemy C&C and resistance through a combination of airpower and very rapid movement of armoured columns.

A war fought on the Korean Penninsula would result in enormous destruction of the S. Korean capitol area because it is within range of N. Korean rockets and artillery, and the huge stockpile of chemical munitions. The N. Koreans have quite accurate missiles that can reach Japan, and have expressed a willness to use them that way if attacked by the US. The fact that the North have nuclear weapons is almost beside the point.

A "preemptive" strike against Iranian nuclear sites would result in the immediate launch of its medium-range missiles against US installations and Israeli WMD sites. The Americans and Israelis might be able to intercept 50% of these, but the result would still be so much destruction that the Israelis would counterattack with nuclear weapons. The Pakistanis might well get into this. The Straits of Hormuz would be shut down for weeks or months. Oil prices would go ballistic. Expect terrorist strikes against US cities using radiological dirty bombs.

Nobody wins. Tell me how any sane person believes this might result in victory or how we would enjoy it?

[madmark]

30. bush already lost one american city through negligence; seattle,

portland, san fran, la are all on the next list of candidates on account of his negligence and incompetence in dealing with n. korea's building of a nuclear arsenal concurrent with a missile delivery system.

[FloridaPat]

5. We have Star Wars! The trillion dollar repub defense plan.

All we have to do is make sure any bombs sent over here have radio transmitters in them.

[Tempest]

6. You and what army?

720,000 against 1 million +.

I guess Pace never heard of General Custer.

And it's a sure bet most of the South Korean troops wouldn't want anything to do with Pace's war and would go AWOL faster than Bush did.

[tritsofme]

11. Bodies wouldn't win a war like this.

We have far superior fire power and technology

Sure we probably have the capability to win a war of this kind, but at the cost of several million souls.

[bpj1962]

22. DMZ

If a war started between North Korea and the US/South Korea the average life expectancy of a solder along the DMZ is 7 minutes. The North Koreans have every single known defensive position zeroed in on with mortars and artillery. The North Korean troops would wait in the many caves and tunnels that are constructed along the DMZ until the artillery barrage was over and then they would come streaming out with all of their horns and drums playing as loudly as possible. Every single scenario for a US/South Korean victory involves a protracted war that would drain the North Koreans of their resources. Kim Jung Ill would be more likely to use a nuke on Japan before he would try to hit us or Seoul. THe Korean peninsula is a giant butcher block and we could lose as many troops in 6 months as we lost in all of Vietnam.

[tritsofme]

25. That sounds like a reasonable scenario

Like you said, there is no way the DPRK can prevail in a war of attrition, if the US and South Korea have the will to win.

[Tempest]

33. No one would win in a war of attrition

Japan - vaporized.
South Korea - vaporized.
U.S. - the loss of a minimum of 30,000 troops and the possible vaporization of urban areas of California. If California goes, so goes the U.S. considering how much California's economy and food production means to the rest of the nation.

[underpants]

9. Was there really any question about this?

Aside form the bloodbath that would result and the fact that Mr.Whackjob (th eKorea one) could actually set off a nuke OF COURSE WE COULD BEAT THEM.

The US military is BY FAR the single greatest power ever EVER constructed. Sure we are stretched thin (understatement) but with air and missile fire we could render anyone completely useless.

This was a concern? The the Chairman of the JCS?

[oneighty]

19. But underpants

people were saying the same thing in the first Korean war. Of course China helped out and who is to say they will not help out again.

Would the South Koreans actually fight their relatives to the North? I wonder.

It is a terrible place for a war. Too cold.

180

[underpants]

23. pffft China doesn't need to fire a round

they already have us by the short and curlies as it is.

[rodeodance]

12. "America's top soldier" should be smarter.

[leveymg]

14. He is smart. What is he up to?

He's putting out a message -- I hope it's merely directed at Precious Leader in N. Korea, not the one in Washington.

[leesa]

21. What a bunch of 6th grade bullies! Idiots.

Our over-priced military is dead in the water. Thank goodness that evil experiment is over.

[Dhalgren]

27. Which "evil experiment"? It's hard to keep track

:hi:

[raysr]

24. Curtis LeMay

What was that JFK said, "If I had to fight a war I'd want LeMay in the first plane" "But I wouldn't want LeMay making the decision whether to go to war!"

[NickB79]

26. I knew a guy in college who was sent to South Korea a couple years ago

In his words: "We'd run out of bullets before we ran out of North Koreans to shoot." Basically, most American and South Korean troops on the peninsula when the fighting starts will most likely die, and the survivors pushed back to the southern tip. The war would only be won by either massive airstrikes, possibly with nuclear warheads, or a massive reinforcements.

[PATRICK]

28. If the scenarios don't change that is the plan

NK makes massive inroads and casualties are enormous. Then its collapsing antique war infrastructure gives way before modern weaponry and the excruciating roll back by superior forces. You have to believe anything in between is toast.

Which is why right at the beginning of this misadministration, before bitch slapping NK away from the peace table, they proposed drawing the sacrificial troops back so they could all be saved for the Big Comeback. With the new weaponry and the ever deteriorating NK capacity the symbolic line was not needed. Of course, that leaves the option of not being too punctual or aggressive in saving SK, which is what would happen inevitably. Either don't complain about meatgrinding footdragging with limited resources or we'll speed things up with nukes. We'll let the uppity SK bleed out its role as a market competitor with some play to involve Japan and China. And India has our ally Pakistan, both sides with nukes. Isn't US foreign policy in an enviable position!

So these constant assurances as we pull out of first harm's way and incidentally free more troops to squeeze out of Korea and into the ME adventure, cause a lot of unease everywhere. Stretched thin is stretched thin. Assurance statements are just another inevitable sign.

You have to wonder what their original plans for NK are other than to eventually embroil our Asian market competitors in widespread bloodshed. Right now it is The Oil Wars, don't bother us- or else.

You have to wonder if any of the field commanders imagine how really ugly the foreign policy is and how it affects them.

[madmark]

29. n korea is the only place that a preemptive war could have ever

made sense, but bush sat on his ass for 6 years with his useless Iraq vanity project while n korea made approx. 6-10 nuclear devices, and perfected missile technology that has already hit alaska, and likely can hit the west coast. In the pantheon of bush fuck ups, history may end up proving his failure to prevent the n. koreans from creating a nuclear arsenal the worst.

[Julius Civitatus]

32. Dr. Strangelove, all over again

[Hekate]

36. Does he mean that country that we "beat" some 50 years ago?

I shudder to think...maybe he thinks by trying out all his new war toys he can death ray them into submission this time.

Why are the lunatics running the asylum?

Hekate