• 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!

War/military action against North Korea predictions

Is US military action against North Korea imminent?

  • No. Kim Jong Un will calm down or Obama will ignore him.

    Votes: 35 66.0%
  • North Korea will be hit with US air, drone and missle strikes.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • A full land invasion of North Korea by US forces is coming soon.

    Votes: 1 1.9%
  • Other

    Votes: 17 32.1%

  • Total voters
    53

Smeagol

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
4,147
Reaction score
1,694
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Kim Jong Un has IMHO already done enough to justify a US military response. He's pointed missiles at American bases in Japan and Guam. He cut the line that allows emergency communications between North and South Korea. Last year he fired missiles at a South Korean residitial area killing innocent civilians seemingly for no other reason than to look tough/crazy. Before his rise to power his father ignored the international community and has successfully proliferated nuclear weapons, weapons Junior now possesses. Under treaty agreements, military actions against South Korea are considered attacks on the United States of America. Un has publically stated a state of war exists between North South Korea, translation: he declared war against America under US treaty obligations. The question is will he come to his senses and back up and/or will president Obama spank that A and treat North Korea as part axis of evil or ignore him? My observation is Obama talks a good game of peace and love when it comes to playing nice with homocidal maniacs but still kicks butt most of the time.

Not sure if I should even say this but I heard on relatively good authority troops scheduled for deployment in Afghanistan have had their orders cancelled 'in case they're needed elsewhere.' A new type of naval sea to surface battle ship never used before is now parked off the coast of North Korea.
 
Last edited:
Kim Jong Un has IMHO already done enough to justify a US military response. He's pointed missiles at American bases in Japan and Guam. He cut the line that allows emergency communications between North and South Korea. Last year he fired missiles at a South Korean residitiall area killing innocent civilians seemingly for no other reason than to look tough/crazy. Before his rise to power his father ignored the international community and has successfully proliferated nuclear weapons, weapons Junior now possesses. Under treaty agreements, military actions against South Korea are considered attacks on the United States of America. Un has publically stated a state of war exists between North South Korea, translation: he declared war against America under US treaty obligations. The question is will he come to his senses and back up and/or will president Obama spank that A and treat North Korea as part axis of evil or ignore him? My observation is Obama talks a good game of peace and love when it comes to playing nice with homocidal maniacs but still kicks butt most of the time.

Not sure if I should even say this but I heard on relatively good authority troops scheduled for deployment in Afghanistan have had their orders cancelled 'in case they're needed elsewhere.' A new type of naval sea to surface battle ship never used before is now parked off the coast of North Korea.

There's one problem with your post. There never was a peace treaty signed. Technically the U.S. has been in a state of war with North Korea since 1950. All that was agreed on was a cease fire, that's all.

I see today (Sunday) Obama has ordered F-22's to the region.

Lets see, F-22's, B-2 bombers and anti ballistic anti missile batteries all deployed to the region. Everyone of those weapons platforms Obama and the liberals have opposed being funded and built.

Do you see a problem here ?
 
There's one problem with your post. There never was a peace treaty signed. Technically the U.S. has been in a state of war with North Korea since 1950. All that was agreed on was a cease fire, that's all.

I see today (Sunday) Obama has ordered F-22's to the region.

Lets see, F-22's, B-2 bombers and anti ballistic anti missile batteries all deployed to the region. Everyone of those weapons platforms Obama and the liberals have opposed being funded and built.

Do you see a problem here ?

Longer learning curve for liberals?
 
Nothing is going to happen. This is expected with new leadership in the country add that with the sanctions the DPRK is throwing a hissy fit and using rhetoric to try to get the sanctions off. Nothing will happen it will chill out in a little bit.
 
Nothing is going to happen. This is expected with new leadership in the country add that with the sanctions the DPRK is throwing a hissy fit and using rhetoric to try to get the sanctions off. Nothing will happen it will chill out in a little bit.

I'm hearing China, which also has new leadership, is no longer giving North Korea a wink and a nod with their craziness and are possibly pressuring them to act right, which may be fueling Un's temper tantrum. Plus, if China publicly supports Korea's reunification, they might feel they've earned America's support to reunify with Taiwan.
 
Longer learning curve for liberals?

That's been my observation in the last forty years.

Remember the USS Pueblo incident ?

I'm more concerned that almost everyone in the Obama administration are considered to be second rate.

And John Kerry, he will probably be considered to be worse than Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. Look how Obama's foreign policy has worked out in the Middle East during the past four years.

But I'm more concerned with how many military commanders who were warriors and actually know how to fight a real conventional war have been relieved of their commands by Obama in the past four years and were replaced with those in the military who are not considered to be warriors but "yes men" and are politically correct enough for Obama.

You don't win battles on the battlefield with political correctness.
 
There's one problem with your post. There never was a peace treaty signed. Technically the U.S. has been in a state of war with North Korea since 1950. All that was agreed on was a cease fire, that's all.

I see today (Sunday) Obama has ordered F-22's to the region.

Lets see, F-22's, B-2 bombers and anti ballistic anti missile batteries all deployed to the region. Everyone of those weapons platforms Obama and the liberals have opposed being funded and built.

Do you see a problem here ?

You don't need F-22s to shoot down MiG-21s, the F-22 fighter platform was a ridiculously over budget unnecessary project that did not give the United States meaningful abilities in the air it did not already have. And when you factor in the cost you could have purchased many more fully capable and wholly sufficient F-15Es or even more drones to deliver a greater payload with just as much accuracy and safety to the pilot as a F-22.
 
NK is not a military problem.

it is a refugee problem.

If Kim -Un-whatever idiot starts and loses a war in record time, the world will be left with 25,000,000 idiots that cant live or work in a modern world and
are full of propoganda.

THAT is the problem......

Imagine if germany started WW2 with flint locks.......and had a medievil economy..........
 
You don't need F-22s to shoot down MiG-21s, the F-22 fighter platform was a ridiculously over budget unnecessary project that did not give the United States meaningful abilities in the air it did not already have. And when you factor in the cost you could have purchased many more fully capable and wholly sufficient F-15Es or even more drones to deliver a greater payload with just as much accuracy and safety to the pilot as a F-22.

Actually the F35 is the one with the major problems and minimal gains in capability. F-22 is the premier fighter aircraft the world. Nothing matches it. It has and unmatched EW capability for a fighter. F-15's and F-16's and others are basically 1970's era airframes that have updated engines and electronics. They can get the job done but it takes more of them and their capabilities are more limited. Drones are not quite ready for CONTESTED airspace yet. In situations where airspace may be contested their electronic leashes may be cut and they are definitely vulnerable to a robust anti air defense. We don't have the drones in production for getting into contested airspace in any numbers yet. Those are mainly in the testing phase of development. Predators and the like are easy pickens in a contested environment. Unfortunately we still need piloted aircraft at this point to defeat most types of contested threats. This means those F-22's and B-2's are worth their weights in gold right now for the capabilities above and beyond anything else anybody can field and that is major advantage that translates to LESS casualties and greater chances of success.
 
Actually the F35 is the one with the major problems and minimal gains in capability. F-22 is the premier fighter aircraft the world. Nothing matches it. It has and unmatched EW capability for a fighter. F-15's and F-16's and others are basically 1970's era airframes that have updated engines and electronics. They can get the job done but it takes more of them and their capabilities are more limited. Drones are not quite ready for CONTESTED airspace yet. In situations where airspace may be contested their electronic leashes may be cut and they are definitely vulnerable to a robust anti air defense. We don't have the drones in production for getting into contested airspace in any numbers yet. Those are mainly in the testing phase of development. Predators and the like are easy pickens in a contested environment. Unfortunately we still need piloted aircraft at this point to defeat most types of contested threats. This means those F-22's and B-2's are worth their weights in gold right now for the capabilities above and beyond anything else anybody can field and that is major advantage that translates to LESS casualties and greater chances of success.

I should have been clearer, what I meant was that the F-22 doesn't give us any edge because we've already achieved total air superiority over any enemy we are likely to fight. Its like trying to improve upon perfection you just can't do it. Now I know there is no such thing as perfection war but for the cost of what the program was we really didn't gain much in the realm of air superiority because already totally dominant that field. Plus you can achieve more with few F-15 than you can with an F-22 and you get the F-15s for cheaper.

The F-22 program cost us what? 66 billion dollars or there abouts, and we got 185 planes out of it, plus you have future maintenance costs which cannot be calculated yet but I haven't seen any estimates. I think we could have got better bang for our buck with F-15s.

But I'm glad you do agree with me that the F-35 is a total flop.
 
You don't need F-22s to shoot down MiG-21s, the F-22 fighter platform was a ridiculously over budget unnecessary project that did not give the United States meaningful abilities in the air it did not already have. And when you factor in the cost you could have purchased many more fully capable and wholly sufficient F-15Es or even more drones to deliver a greater payload with just as much accuracy and safety to the pilot as a F-22.

Maybe you better get on the phone and tell Obama he doesn't need to deploy those F-22's.

BTW: The F-15 E is a tactical strike aircraft not an air superiority fighter. It's the closest thing we could come up with for the replacement of the F-111.

The F-15 C is the air superiority fighter.
 
No. Kim Jong Un will calm down or Obama will ignore him.

That one. I don't see nK being worth a strike without terrible provocation.

Invasion is out of the question, unless China wants to have full control over the nation building post invasion (or inexplicably gives such to the US and South Korea). Even if China was ok with US/sK doing the nation building, we cannot afford it in nK. Iraq, with its oil and basic infrastructure (and lack of social capital because of Saddam) is difficult enough. nK is not buildable without China or UN commitment to nation building.
 
I should have been clearer, what I meant was that the F-22 doesn't give us any edge because we've already achieved total air superiority over any enemy we are likely to fight. Its like trying to improve upon perfection you just can't do it. Now I know there is no such thing as perfection war but for the cost of what the program was we really didn't gain much in the realm of air superiority because already totally dominant that field. Plus you can achieve more with few F-15 than you can with an F-22 and you get the F-15s for cheaper.

The F-22 program cost us what? 66 billion dollars or there abouts, and we got 185 planes out of it, plus you have future maintenance costs which cannot be calculated yet but I haven't seen any estimates. I think we could have got better bang for our buck with F-15s.

But I'm glad you do agree with me that the F-35 is a total flop.

There is no such thing as total dominance of the air war phase or any other phase for that matter till AFTER you achieve it. The F-22 is a very vital plane we have that has significant improvement and additional capabilities that the F-15 don't. And it is those capabilities in the INTITIAL phase of an air war that will eventually lead hopefully to aerial dominance with much less cost in material and manpower and time losses vs the F-15. The performance at the initial stages will determine the likely out come of the conflict. Which if you think about it would be worth the price in dollars verses the price in men. I'd rather spend money. Its easier to come by. Men are a more limited resource. Once dominance is achieved then your right the F-22 is overkill. Where the F-22 pays for itself is securing that dominance as quickly and efficiently as possible especially in a heavy SAM environment where it will really shine vs. F-15.
 
Maybe you better get on the phone and tell Obama he doesn't need to deploy those F-22's.

BTW: The F-15 E is a tactical strike aircraft not an air superiority fighter. It's the closest thing we could come up with for the replacement of the F-111.

The F-15 C is the air superiority fighter.

I can assure you that the F-15E is a fine fighter and performs quite similarly to the C model in that respect and can perform air superiority missions just as well. In fact the E model is an upgraded B model with some structural changes made and upgraded engines and FAST packs.
 
I believe that KJU will continue to rattle his sabre until he gets an appeasement that is to his liking.
He knows that we (the US) are very tired of war and will go to great lengths to avoid it.
 
I can assure you that the F-15E is a fine fighter and performs quite similarly to the C model in that respect and can perform air superiority missions just as well. In fact the E model is an upgraded B model with some structural changes made and upgraded engines and FAST packs.

Maybe true, but I doubt there's anyone in the USAF who's going to send F-15 E's to clear the skies of other air superiority fighters.

But a quick research I come up with that the F-15 E has half the air superiority rating of the F-15 C. That the F-15 E is about equal to the FA-18 C in air to air combat where as the F-15 C is rated twice as high as the FA-18C

This isn't from the internet, but the info is six years old.

If I remember correctly during training competition missions where Navy and Marine aircraft went up against the F-15 E, the Super Hornets were able to defeat it. The F-15 C had an edge over the F-18 E Super Hornets but there were a few times that the F-18 E prevailed but usually the F-15 C won.

As for the F-22, no aircraft in competitions including the F-15 C was able to defeat the F-22.
 
Maybe true, but I doubt there's anyone in the USAF who's going to send F-15 E's to clear the skies of other air superiority fighters.

But a quick research I come up with that the F-15 E has half the air superiority rating of the F-15 C. That the F-15 E is about equal to the FA-18 C in air to air combat where as the F-15 C is rated twice as high as the FA-18C

This isn't from the internet, but the info is six years old.

If I remember correctly during training competition missions where Navy and Marine aircraft went up against the F-15 E, the Super Hornets were able to defeat it. The F-15 C had an edge over the F-18 E Super Hornets but there were a few times that the F-18 E prevailed but usually the F-15 C won.

As for the F-22, no aircraft in competitions including the F-15 C was able to defeat the F-22.

The reason for that is the F-15E runs the FAST pack conformal fuel tank and sensor packages normaly, they don't normally run them clean like the C. The Tanks can be removed or added to the C or E. Without the tanks the performance would be about equal or lesser to a small fraction. The FAST tanks are sometimes called conformal fuel tanks or CFT's. They add a extra 750 gallons of fuel and additional sensors. They also add weight and drag and cant be dropped in flight. Like I said before its basically a hopped up B model strengthened structurally for extended life and extended low level flight with more powerful turbines. The performance wont quite match the C when both are clean but should be relatively close.
 
I should have been clearer, what I meant was that the F-22 doesn't give us any edge because we've already achieved total air superiority over any enemy we are likely to fight.

With the F-22, yes. Insofar as it is a game of plane v plane. Without it, not as much, no.

The F-35 is a nightmare because they tried to make the plane a replacement for everything else. The A-10? Really? :roll:
 
Kim Jong Un has IMHO already done enough to justify a US military response. He's pointed missiles at American bases in Japan and Guam. He cut the line that allows emergency communications between North and South Korea. Last year he fired missiles at a South Korean residitial area killing innocent civilians seemingly for no other reason than to look tough/crazy. Before his rise to power his father ignored the international community and has successfully proliferated nuclear weapons, weapons Junior now possesses. Under treaty agreements, military actions against South Korea are considered attacks on the United States of America. Un has publically stated a state of war exists between North South Korea, translation: he declared war against America under US treaty obligations. The question is will he come to his senses and back up and/or will president Obama spank that A and treat North Korea as part axis of evil or ignore him? My observation is Obama talks a good game of peace and love when it comes to playing nice with homocidal maniacs but still kicks butt most of the time.

Not sure if I should even say this but I heard on relatively good authority troops scheduled for deployment in Afghanistan have had their orders cancelled 'in case they're needed elsewhere.' A new type of naval sea to surface battle ship never used before is now parked off the coast of North Korea.

No one really knows whats going to happen at this point. It all depends on Kim Jong Un. The possibility of a nuclear war was always trumped by the M.A.D theory (mutually assured destruction). But than again that model operates under the assumption that the actors in question are RATIONAL human beings. If N. Korea does control operative nuclear weapons, the fate of the world as we know it all depends if Kim Jong Un is a rational human being. If not, even the tiniest of "provocation", such as the death of a N. Korean military official for example, could spark a nuclear fallout.


SO... in closing.....

I hope every one is good with Jesus :lol: :angel?:
 
Last edited:
No one really knows whats going to happen at this point. It all depends on Kim Jong Un. The possibility of a nuclear war was always trumped by the M.A.D theory (mutually assured destruction). But than again that model operates under the assumption that the actors in question are RATIONAL human beings. If N. Korea does control operative nuclear weapons, the fate of the world as we know it all depends if Kim Jong Un is a rational human being. If not, even the tiniest of "provocation", such as the death of a N. Korean military official for example, could spark a nuclear fallout.


SO... in closing.....

I hope every one is good with Jesus :lol: :angel?:

One thing we have in our favor is Un doesn't has a missle delivery system capable of carrying out a nuclear strike against the US except the US territory of Guam, but that doesn't mean SK or Japan along with our troops there are safe. Nor doesn't mean he can't put a nuke on a fishing boat and try to get it off the coast of California or Hawaii nor does if mean he can't sell/give nukes to Al Qaeda. All made possible by our key ally in the war on terror, Pakistan ...after the 9-11 attacks.
 
You don't need F-22s to shoot down MiG-21s, the F-22 fighter platform was a ridiculously over budget unnecessary project that did not give the United States meaningful abilities in the air it did not already have. And when you factor in the cost you could have purchased many more fully capable and wholly sufficient F-15Es or even more drones to deliver a greater payload with just as much accuracy and safety to the pilot as a F-22.

"Oh"......and what About the Mig 29. Do you think the F 15 can take those on? Also we have only a total of 160 F22. Moreover Drones wont work over N Korea. Ya have to control the Sky first.
 
One thing we have in our favor is Un doesn't has a missle delivery system capable of carrying out a nuclear strike against the US except the US territory of Guam, but that doesn't mean SK or Japan along with our troops there are safe. Nor doesn't mean he can't put a nuke on a fishing boat and try to get it off the coast of California or Hawaii nor does if mean he can't sell/give nukes to Al Qaeda. All made possible by our key ally in the war on terror, Pakistan ...after the 9-11 attacks.

He does have 40 Submarines and Also they are Capable of Hitting Japan and possibly our west Coast. As to where they got this Capability. It was China as they gave them the Launchers.
 
Maybe you better get on the phone and tell Obama he doesn't need to deploy those F-22's.

BTW: The F-15 E is a tactical strike aircraft not an air superiority fighter. It's the closest thing we could come up with for the replacement of the F-111.

The F-15 C is the air superiority fighter.

The majority of them are Sitting up in Alaska and on our West Coast. Minus what he has just sent there but I heard those ones came from Japan.
 
Most think Un will back off of this and then as things die down. Launch some attack on S Korea once we go off heightened alert. Like they Did with the Shelling of those Islands or the Sinking of the Cheonan. Especially if we are distracted somewhere else.
 
Back
Top Bottom