Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei
The US isn't over stretched to wage a military campaign against North Korea. We have 80,000 Army personnal between S. Korea and Japan, we have our Flag Ship Fleet in the 7th Fleet, our Largest forward-deployed fleet in the Navy. The military personnal presence is by and large moot as it would be retarded to do a ground invasion of North Korea, in a conflict with them we would hold at the DMZ and push buttons (i.e. lots of missles and bombs).
Your question posed is a little weird in its wording, if NK took "a few shots"? I'm sure no amount of aggression would be tolerated; the thing is though, if aggression is taken, I doubt it will be limited to a few shots as myself and others have alluded to Seoul being pounded to shit by NK artillery.
And yes the rest of the world would no doubt cave in this instance.
|
Don't recall missiles and bombs getting Saddam in either war, or bin Laden, or any other number of leaders over the years. Ground battles are still required to win wars and more importantly, win the peace. And the US currently does not have the resources to go in on the ground. The NK army is huge - they are not as technologically advanced as the US - but the US will require more troops than are currently in Iraq and Afghanistan to get the job done against them. And unless you've got an extra quarter million troops currently available ...
Undistracted by Iraq, Afghanistan, and other situations, there is no doubt the US would win, but that is not the situation.
I think the only potential difference to the US invading NK instead of Iraq is that NK is pretty isolated. I don't see waves of Pakistani or Saudi or Irani fighters coming over the hill to support NK or to fill the void once the current NK government is deposed. SK would be involved in a big way too, in winning the peace.