• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

North Korea reportedly fires at South

you would take it until their massive numbers overwhelmed your forces, such that you lost control of the battlefield and the engagement
i do not see a position superior to being in control of the battlefield

Unless their massive numbers were inserted into the battlespace piecemeal. When Sherman sent his men in, piecemeal, at 1st Manassas, his brigade was slaughtered, although he had overwhelming forces. Ultimately, the Federal Army lost the battle, because they weren't experienced enough to know better than to send their units in one-at-a-time. It was a valuable lesson learned.
 
Unless their massive numbers were inserted into the battlespace piecemeal. When Sherman sent his men in, piecemeal, at 1st Manassas, his brigade was slaughtered, although he had overwhelming forces. Ultimately, the Federal Army lost the battle, because they weren't experienced enough to know better than to send their units in one-at-a-time. It was a valuable lesson learned.

again, lost contol of the battlefield
there is no substitute for maintaining control of the battlefield
keep playing. try again
 
you would take it until their massive numbers overwhelmed your forces, such that you lost control of the battlefield and the engagement
i do not see a position superior to being in control of the battlefield

Assuming they have enough men to sustain a million casulties and shrug it off. It really comes down to which gives first, land or men. And its an awful big world. I really can't imagine an army being able to sustain the type of losses the Chinese took, and keep going for very long. In the last days of the Korean War, the American had caught its collective breath on the 38th, and they were ready to counterattack. The Chinese/North Koreans had lost a total of one million men up to that point, and we'd lost less then 50,000. With numbers that heavily swayed, if we kept going, we would've won the Korean War, and absolutely crushed the Chinese Army. Granted the world very well might have ended after that.

Let me put it to you this way, if you can find an army that can bring enough men to a given theater of war to easily sustain a 20 casulties for 1 casulty inflicted, and still maintain enough men to keep going battle after battle, until the war ends, I'll concede this point. But the simple fact of the matter is, you can't. Even historically, the Persians won at Thermoplyae but cleared the way for the decisive Greek victory at Plataea because they no longer had the numbers and morale. And that wasn't close to a 20-to-1 loss ratio.
 
Last edited:
Debate Politics: UPDATE

FLASH: North Korea rejects talks proposal from U.S. forces in South Korea, says South Korean government source: Yonhap
less than 5 seconds ago via Seesmic Web .

FLASH: North Korea warns of more retaliatory attacks for new south "provocations"
10 minutes ago via Seesmic Web

http://twitter.com/Reuters
 
Debate Politics: UPDATE

FLASH: North Korea rejects talks proposal from U.S. forces in South Korea, says South Korean government source: Yonhap
less than 5 seconds ago via Seesmic Web .

FLASH: North Korea warns of more retaliatory attacks for new south "provocations"
10 minutes ago via Seesmic Web

Reuters Top News (Reuters) on Twitter

First off I would like to thank you for keeping this on topic. This is an important topic specifically to me that I don't think needs to be cheapened with the typical fluff on this forum.

As for what you found that is very interesting, however the way it seems China is reacting to this there will not be as much cause for alarm as well, North Korea is on their own. Apparently Kim Jong-Il (sp) son is commanding these NK forces?
 
I think China will sooner or later but their pit bull back in it's cage, if they don't I believe NK will be on their own. That part of the region can ill afford a war that would involve the U.S. and ultimately involve the rest of the world indirectly either monetarily, economically and eventually make this fragile world economical atmosphere worse. Just my 2 cents worth.
 
again, lost contol of the battlefield
there is no substitute for maintaining control of the battlefield
keep playing. try again

And, just like in 1950, they had so many men, in need of so much materiale, so far away from friendly rear areas, that they couldn't support them any longer.

Combat power depends on being able to provide pogistical support for your forward friendly forces.

It's funny to watch Libbos talk about combat tactics, as if they have the first ****ing clue what they're trying to say.
 
Cut off their information.

if you retain control of the battlefield despite the absence of current intelligence, what has the enemy actually accomplished?
 
if you retain control of the battlefield despite the absence of current intelligence, what has the enemy actually accomplished?
Nothing.

But such is unlikely.

If they cut off your supply of information, you will not know (until too late) when they bring forces into play that could give THEM control of the battlefield.

Information is an integral part of battlefield control.
 
And, just like in 1950, they had so many men, in need of so much materiale, so far away from friendly rear areas, that they couldn't support them any longer.

Combat power depends on being able to provide pogistical support for your forward friendly forces.

It's funny to watch Libbos talk about combat tactics, as if they have the first ****ing clue what they're trying to say.

the real humor is in watching those whose lame statements are shown to be without basis attempt to deflect the attention away from their unsupportable positions
in this instance, you would want to discuss the necessity of logistical support for an extended military presence

it was asserted that
... there is much more to war than control of the battlefield.
and i said that was wrong
your side insists that there is something more essential to military victory than control of the battlefield
in your most recent failed try you insisted logistics was more critical than control of the battlefield as an essential element of military victory

certainly, such control could not be accomplished where logistical support was required but unavailable, but that aspect of control of the battlefield is not in question
stretching an army beyond its logistic support is not good strategy to maintain control of the battlefield
having adequate logistic support does not assure control of the battlefield
which means you are wrong yet again. sorry, no kewpie doll
we are still waiting on you to tell us what is more essential to military victory than control of the battlefield
try again
 
One of the problems I see in this little thought exercise is the where and who. I think we should come up withthe most extreme case we can find.

I think we should look at what would happen in the Chinese Ground Forces went up against the American Forces in South Korea. I'm not sure which American forces to consider though, whats the limit you guys want to draw up? I'm thinking American Forces on the peninsula, in Guam and Japan. For China, it'd be their entire army, for arguments sake. That work?

EDIT: Looking into it, we should consider the 8th US Army, Pacific Air Forces, Marine Forces Korea, and US Naval Forces Korea for the American side. Thats 28,500 troops.
 
Last edited:
Post #279.

in post 279 you concede that my point prevails where confronted with overwhelming force

which allows us to conclude that when there is not overwhelming opposition you believe there to be something more essential to achieving military victory than control of the battlefield

but you failed to let us know what is more important to attainment of military victory than control of the battlefield

since it's thanksgiving, you get another try

i look forward to your telling us what is more essential to achieving military victory than control of the battlefield
 
in post 279 you concede that my point prevails where confronted with overwhelming force

which allows us to conclude that when there is not overwhelming opposition you believe there to be something more essential to achieving military victory than control of the battlefield

but you failed to let us know what is more important to attainment of military victory than control of the battlefield

since it's thanksgiving, you get another try

i look forward to your telling us what is more essential to achieving military victory than control of the battlefield

Aren't you embarrassed that you didn't even understand the basic premise of my post? Seriously, its like you looked at it thought, "Ahhh...I don't feel like addressing it, I'll just bull s**t" and then you posted this.

Now go back, read my post, and address it, properly.
 
Not too negative, just unrealistic. That was obvious when I said "In reality that really isn't the case."

Perhaps you should visit and see how rosy it is? However the last American that tried that almost didn't come back. And I hear if you need to lose weight it would be a great place to visit. I'm sure the starving natives would love to give up what little they have to share with you.
 
Last edited:
They would have to disband the UN first, then attempt to create a new similar organization. The creation of a new one would unlikely allow for the creation of permenant "Security Council Members" with veto power

You're wasting your time LT.
 
Aren't you embarrassed that you didn't even understand the basic premise of my post? Seriously, its like you looked at it thought, "Ahhh...I don't feel like addressing it, I'll just bull s**t" and then you posted this.

Now go back, read my post, and address it, properly.

it was addressed with all of the heft it deserved
but impress us and tell us what is more essential to achieving military victory than maintaining control of the battlefield ... this should be rich [/s]
 
Never mind that any war will not involve us pounding them for a month before any ground forces get involved.

Could you elaborate on that DOL? I would think pounding them first would be in our best interest. Are you saying ground action would be so immediate we won't get the option to pound them first?
 
And, just like in 1950, they had so many men, in need of so much materiale, so far away from friendly rear areas, that they couldn't support them any longer.

Combat power depends on being able to provide pogistical support for your forward friendly forces.

It's funny to watch Libbos talk about combat tactics, as if they have the first ****ing clue what they're trying to say.

You may be surprised to know what kind of combat experience those you call "libbos" have. From my experience the guy who thinks he's the expert with the big mouth is no where near the expert he thinks he is.
 
it was addressed with all of the heft it deserved
but impress us and tell us what is more essential to achieving military victory than maintaining control of the battlefield ... this should be rich [/s]

As I pointed out in the post you obviously didn't read, you cannot find a country that can field enough soldiers to take 20-to-1 losses, and keep going. If there are 28,500 American Soldiers in South Korea, you would need 570,000 troops to take them out, plus the South Korean Army has 655,000 active duty soldiers, plus 3 million reserves. Maybe if all of North Korea mobilized, they could take the peninsula, but thats not feasible. China and North Korea together can't take the peninsula if the 20-to-1 ratio holds true, and that difference will be even more pronounced now, because the Allied Air Forces, Naval Forces and Ground Forces are a considerably more powerful than they were. The North Koreans not so much, and unless every Chinese soldier, along with every army vehicle they have goes until, they cannot even hope to match the technological superiority of the Allies.

So, yeah, you're right in some ludicrously extreme hypothetical scenario, controlling the battlefield is the most important thing, and is the goal every country should work to achieve. When you apply reality to the situation, however, and find out it'd take a million plus soldiers to control the battlefield, you look pretty foolish.
 
Anyone beside myself think that maybe the ole man has died and the son has take over?

Anything's possible. The only sure thing is if it's in NK's best interest not to tell us we won't hear it from them.
 
NK Special Forces number more than 100000 (the biggest in the world)...

Don't underestimate your own Special Forces. My dad who was in Special Forces during the Vietnam era was familar with some of them. He said they were very, very, tough cookies. No one to mess with. I can't recall for sure but I believe he said something about them skewering VC heads on fence posts as a warning. Or maybe that was the Chinese that were on our side.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom