• 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
I don't think he will calm down, but the USA will do nothing but huff and puff.
 
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.

I did not know this. This makes the argument for regime change even more compelling.
 
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.

It's hard to say right now. It depends on how China would react. If China decides that they're done with NK, then it might happen. The big problem is the nukes. They probably can't nuke California, but they can nuke Seoul.
 
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.

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:

"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.

I always want the the troops to have the best equipment, but there's a practical side to this as well. I don't deny the F-22s superiority over anything else that flies these days, but in terms of dollars vs benefits I just don't see the value, its an air superiority fighter at at time when in our current wars we have air superiority by default meaning we don't even have to fight for it. Plus you have the fact that an F-22 costs about 5 times more than an F-15C, Apache was right about the designation, now does an F-22.

Its an amazing piece of equipment that's for sure but I don't know if I see it as being worth the taxpayer dollars that went into it.
 
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.
North Korea has a history of pulling **** and nothing else happening.So I say no nothing is going to happen.
 
If people stopped acting like NK was a "real problem" this would all go away.

NK is grabbing attention the only way it can. Empty threats and saber-rattling.

The best thing to do is ignore them.

So no - there's absolutely 100% ZERO justification for any kind of action against NK.
 
"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.

Actually the F-15 is the only fighter in the world with a perfect record. 100 kills to zero losses. Including the Mig 29. The F-15 is still a very viable and excellent aircraft it is just very much out classed in almost all ways with significant margin by the F-22. The F-22 would be a more cost and actual effective way of securing superiority while the F-15 is the cost effective way to maintain it.
 
It's hard to say right now. It depends on how China would react. If China decides that they're done with NK, then it might happen. The big problem is the nukes. They probably can't nuke California, but they can nuke Seoul.

...or Tokyo, Okinawa, Alaska, Naval Base Guam and Anderson AF Base in Guam.

_59119706_north_korea_ranges_2.jpg
 
Actually the F-15 is the only fighter in the world with a perfect record. 100 kills to zero losses. Including the Mig 29. The F-15 is still a very viable and excellent aircraft it is just very much out classed in almost all ways with significant margin by the F-22. The F-22 would be a more cost and actual effective way of securing superiority while the F-15 is the cost effective way to maintain it.

Well what about with a few Mig 35s? I don't think they will be able to hold that Perfect Record if they had to encounter such. Moreover, lets not forget all the Sam Sites and Mobile Launchers that will be assisting them should anything take place over their Skies. This wont be like Afghanistan or Iraq.

Not that I think it will come to that. But you Know we cant send in the drones until we have control of the Skies.
 
...or Tokyo, Okinawa, Alaska, Naval Base Guam and Anderson AF Base in Guam.

View attachment 67145378

If they can get the rockets and warheads to work the way they're supposed to. History would indicate that NK has some trouble with that.

Regardless, it would be foolish to go storming in if the Chinese are going to defend them.
 
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 ?

Sigh. More of the same partisan bull**** from you. Had Democrats opposed those weapons systems they never would have been built. Grow up.
 
From RDS and what he had up, in another thread.


northkorea940a.jpg
 
I always want the the troops to have the best equipment, but there's a practical side to this as well. I don't deny the F-22s superiority over anything else that flies these days, but in terms of dollars vs benefits I just don't see the value, its an air superiority fighter at at time when in our current wars we have air superiority by default meaning we don't even have to fight for it. Plus you have the fact that an F-22 costs about 5 times more than an F-15C, Apache was right about the designation, now does an F-22.

Its an amazing piece of equipment that's for sure but I don't know if I see it as being worth the taxpayer dollars that went into it.

Its your assumption that we will automatically have air superiority is where I believe you may need to review. That sort of thing should NEVER be assumed. They may have capabilities or circumstance or skill which may negate wholly or partially our aerial advantage. No plan survives contact with the enemy. It is in our best interests to maintain as much of a qualitative and capability advantage as we can, to minimize human and material loss and maximize initial and continuing effectiveness. The F-22 should be thought of as insurance against most of the vagaries of war. The F-22 will only pay for itself in conflict, by preserving more efficiently human and material capital on our side and more efficiently degrading enemy human and material capitol. Preserving capitol material and human has a domino effect over the course of a conflict.
 
North Korea: What happens if Kim Jong-un acts on his threats?

But if hostilities were in fact to erupt, how might they play out?

Some former US Special Operations Forces and longtime Korea defense analysts have their own thoughts on what an “unequivocal” US military response could look like, including how US troops would be deployed in the event of a lethal first strike on US and allied military forces by North Korea – precisely the sort of move Mr. Kim has been threatening to make.

What would such a first North Korean move resemble? It might involve small-scale infiltrations using mini-submarines, assassination attempts, “maybe shooting someone on the DMZ [demilitarized zone] or missile tests that fly too close over Japan,” says Patrick Cronin, senior director of the Asia-Pacific Security Program at the Center for a New American Security.

One of the scenarios that most concerns US defense analysts, for example, involves North Korea’s estimated 500,000 to 700,000 rounds of artillery aimed at Seoul, says retired Brig. Gen. Russell Howard, former commander of the 1st Special Forces Group, which has an Asia focus.

Should Kim decide to begin firing them, he says, “in the first few hours of the conflict, it would be pretty ugly.”

At the same time, North Korea could begin “swarming” its sizable contingent of 600,000 Special Operations commandos, adds Mr. Howard, now the director of the Terrorism, Research, and Education Program at the Monterey Institute of International Studies.

The “sole purpose” of this group, he adds “is to infiltrate the South and create havoc.”

The realistic goal of the North Korean military would likely be to get some 150,000 of them over the border, where they would “go for infrastructure,” such as communications and transportation systems.

Complicating efforts to find these infiltrators would be a massive influx of North Korean refugees, in the neighborhood of 3.5 to 4 million into China and another 2.5 million likely moving south into South Korea.

“It’s going to be a human disaster that we’ve never experienced – there are going to be so many refugees,” Howard says. “It would just be a nightmare to try to separate civilians from the battlefield.”

But while the US would no doubt disable these systems, “the artillery or chemical weapons that North Korea is capable of firing into Seoul – a city of some 20 million – would still have a devastating impact,” says Victor Cha, the Korea chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

Most difficult of all, perhaps, would be the mission that US Special Operations Forces would be given: There is little doubt that they would be deployed with an urgent order to secure North Korean weapons of mass destruction.

Accomplishing that “would be tough,” Howard says. “It would be very tough.”

North Korea: What happens if Kim Jong-un acts on his threats?

;)
 
Well what about with a few Mig 35s? I don't think they will be able to hold that Perfect Record if they had to encounter such. Moreover, lets not forget all the Sam Sites and Mobile Launchers that will be assisting them should anything take place over their Skies. This wont be like Afghanistan or Iraq.

Not that I think it will come to that. But you Know we cant send in the drones until we have control of the Skies.

It can hold its own against Su-35s and other Su27 airframe aircraft, but the F-22 should be used to secure Air Superiority and F-15's maintain it. Our current series of drones would be easy meat in a conflicted airspace.
 
It can hold its own against Su-35s and other Su27 airframe aircraft, but the F-22 should be used to secure Air Superiority and F-15's maintain it. Our current series of drones would be easy meat in a conflicted airspace.

As of 1992, the army was composed of sixteen corps commands, two separate special operations forces commands, and nine military district commands (or regions) under the control of the Ministry of the People's Armed Forces. Most sources agreed that the DPRK's ground forces consisted of approximately 145 divisions and brigades, of which approximately 120 are active. There is less agreement, however, on the breakdown of the forces.

As of 1996, major combat units consisted of 153 divisions and brigades, including 60 infantry divisions/brigades, 25 mechanized infantry brigades, 13 tank brigades, 25 Special Operation Force (SOF) brigades and 30 artillery brigades.[12] North Korea deployed ten corps including sixty divisions and brigades in the forward area south of the Pyongyang-Wonsan line.

Capabilities......

220px-North_korean-semi-submersible.jpg

Semi-submersible infiltration craft used by North Korean Special Forces

Although the North Korean military once enjoyed a startling advantage against its counterpart in South Korea, its relative isolation and economic plight starting from the 1980s has now tipped the balance of military power into the hands of the better-equipped South Korean military.[6] In response to this predicament, North Korea relies on asymmetric warfare techniques and unconventional weaponry to achieve parity against high-tech enemy forces.[6] North Korea has developed a wide range of technologies towards this end, such as stealth paint to conceal ground targets,[30] midget submarines and human torpedoes[31] and a vast array of chemical and biological weapons.[32] The Korean People's Army also operates ZM-87 anti-personnel lasers, which are banned under the United Nations Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons.[33]

Since the 1980s, North Korea has also been actively developing its own cyber warfare capabilities, and as of 2011 has some 1,000 skilled military hackers.[34][6] The Korean People's Army has also made advances in electronic warfare by developing GPS jammers.[35] Current models include vehicle-mounted jammers with a range of 50 kilometres (31 mi)-100 kilometres (62 mi). Jammers with a range of more than 100 km are being developed, along with electromagnetic pulse bombs.[36] The Korean People's Army has also made attempts to jam South Korean military satellites.[37]

Despite the general fuel and ammunition shortages for training, it is estimated that the wartime strategic reserves of food for the army are sufficient to feed the regular troops for 500 days, while fuel and ammunition - amounting to 1.5 million and 1.7 million tonnes respectively - are sufficient to wage a full-scale war for 100 days.[38]

220px-Mig17-north_korea.jpg

A former Indonesian Lim-5 on display in the United States in North Korean markings.

220px-Air_Koryo_Ilyushin_Il-76MD_Sibille-1.jpg

A KPAF Ilyushin Il-76MD strategic airlifter in the mid-2000s, in Air Koryo markings.

The KPA does not operate aircraft carriers, but has other means of power projection. Korean People's Air Force Il-76MD aircraft provide a strategic airlift capacity of 6,000 troops, while the Navy's sea lift capacity amounts to 15,000 troops.[39] The Strategic Rocket Forces operate more than 1,000 ballistic missiles according to South Korean officials.[40] North Korea acquired 12 Foxtrot class and Golf-II class missile submarines as scrap in 1993.[41] Some analysts suggest that these have either been refurbished with the help of Russian experts or their launch tubes have been reverse-engineered and externally fitted to regular submarines or cargo ships.[42] In both cases, the KPA would be within a proposed firing range of islands in the central Pacific Ocean and the Western coast of North America.[41]

A photograph of Kim Jong Un receiving a briefing from his top generals on March 29, 2013 revealed the military had a minimum of 40 submarines, 13 landing ships, 6 minesweepers, 27 support vessels and 1,852 aircraft.[43].....snip~

Korean People's Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Basic Wiki. ;)
 
From what I've read this peacocking by N. Korea is due to internal problems. The new unestablished Kim Jong trying to establish some sort of control and the best way is some saber rattling? I doubt that in any calculation by Kim Jong war with S. Korea and the US ends with anything other than the end of his regime and everybody in it.

I just don't seem them going all the way. I think it would shock everyone if they actually did start invading or firing on the south. I think China behind the scenes has made it obvious they are probably on their own in that scenario!
 
I always want the the troops to have the best equipment, but there's a practical side to this as well. I don't deny the F-22s superiority over anything else that flies these days, but in terms of dollars vs benefits I just don't see the value, its an air superiority fighter at at time when in our current wars we have air superiority by default meaning we don't even have to fight for it. Plus you have the fact that an F-22 costs about 5 times more than an F-15C, Apache was right about the designation, now does an F-22.

Its an amazing piece of equipment that's for sure but I don't know if I see it as being worth the taxpayer dollars that went into it.

What it finally comes down too, Obama made a decision that the USAF disagreed with. The Air Force said they would need a minimum of 400 F-22's to guarantee air superiority for the next 50 years.

That the production lines were shut down but the manufactures and hundreds of sub contractors held off for three years before dismantling and scrapping the production line until after the 2012 elections. By next year it will be impossible to reopen production of any more F-22's even though Russia and China both have come out with their own version of the F-22.

Obama made a decision and many Generals say that Obama refuses to look at what threats America may be facing twenty or thirty years over the horizon. As one General told me, "Obama is a national security threat."
 
Sigh. More of the same partisan bull**** from you. Had Democrats opposed those weapons systems they never would have been built. Grow up.

Did I mention Democrats ? I mentioned liberals or those leftist of the "New Left" who hide behind the label of being liberal or progressive.

Not all Democrats despise the U.S. military and those who serve.

But since the 1970's not all but most liberals with in the Democrat Party have opposed just about every weapons platform that has been produced. Even Senator Barack Obama opposed a defense spending amendment for further R&D of the Predator UAV (droane), the same weapons platform that Obama has made his weapon of choice today.

BTW: Re: "partisan bull****", go to the top of this page and you'll see two words. Debate Politics. Telling others that you disagree with to "grow up" only reveals your immaturity.
 
What it finally comes down too, Obama made a decision that the USAF disagreed with. The Air Force said they would need a minimum of 400 F-22's to guarantee air superiority for the next 50 years.

That the production lines were shut down but the manufactures and hundreds of sub contractors held off for three years before dismantling and scrapping the production line until after the 2012 elections. By next year it will be impossible to reopen production of any more F-22's even though Russia and China both have come out with their own version of the F-22.

Obama made a decision and many Generals say that Obama refuses to look at what threats America may be facing twenty or thirty years over the horizon. As one General told me, "Obama is a national security threat."

I love your anecdotes, you really are so full of yourself that you think that's all you need to support your argument. Well I once had a General tell me that Obama was the greatest thing to happen to National Security since George Washington.

Also the reduction from the USAF's initial estimates of 400 fighters was done during the Bush administration in 2004
Losing Air Dominance

In December 2004, the Rumsfeld Pentagon used a technical budget ruling known as a program budget decision to yank funds from a range of different programs. The cuts hit primarily from 2006 through 2010. For the air dominance force, it was devastating. Program Budget Decision 753 broke up the post-Gulf War fighter plan for good.

PBD 753 slashed $10 billion from the F-22 procurement budget, leaving the program of record at an anemic level of just 183 F-22s. PBD 753’s reductions put the fighter force structure into the red. Without doubt, it left unfunded the Air Force’s requirement for fighters to meet deployment tasking for war plans under the national military strategy.

While its true that during the Obama years many attempted to increase the number from 183, and its true that Obama and Secretary Gates were not on board with the idea and worked to prevented, it is not true that Obama made the decision to cut the number from 400 to the current 183.
 
No not even the Hermit Nation is that crazy + it can only really destroy Alaska at present in any case.

The Russians and the Chinese also want them to calm down. Both could apply a hell of alot more pressure for peace and unification though. But why would they give up a 100% influence against the west?

Sabre rattling and patriotic gesturing is always good for the morale of the home front as Kim Jong is well aware.
It's a nation that has to tell itself it's in a constant state of war otherwise the populace may wonder what life's like outside of it's Walls.
 
In 1950 we were not nearly as mighty as we are today - thanks in part to Ronald Reagan.
The NKs may be nuts but they are not stupid , they know this and they know our record - in Iraq.
I look for them and their leader to settle, and ever so slowly, peace on this peninsula will occur.
But, our extremists must be kept at bay.
 
What it finally comes down too, Obama made a decision that the USAF disagreed with. The Air Force said they would need a minimum of 400 F-22's to guarantee air superiority for the next 50 years.

That the production lines were shut down but the manufactures and hundreds of sub contractors held off for three years before dismantling and scrapping the production line until after the 2012 elections. By next year it will be impossible to reopen production of any more F-22's even though Russia and China both have come out with their own version of the F-22.

Obama made a decision and many Generals say that Obama refuses to look at what threats America may be facing twenty or thirty years over the horizon. As one General told me, "Obama is a national security threat."

How exactly will it be "impossible" to reopen the F-22 line? I find that curious the word impossible being used since after all it was built in the first place. I believe the word expensive should be used. Not impossible.
 
How exactly will it be "impossible" to reopen the F-22 line? I find that curious the word impossible being used since after all it was built in the first place. I believe the word expensive should be used. Not impossible.

The tools, dies, etc are being scrapped. Assembly lines are not packed up in crates and stored in warehouses.

Those who have the skills and knowledge to build the F-22 have moved on.

Why do you think we always have a nuclear sub under construction ? If we didn't those who know how to build those subs will have moved on and those skills will be lost.

From the 1950 to the 1980's we neglected our Navy's mine warfare fleet. For thirty years we had WW ll, Korean War mine sweepers. During the Iran-Iraq War with Iran laying mines in the Gulf and the "Taker Wars" during the Reagan administration, those thirty plus year old mine sweepers had to be replaced.

One thing about mine counter warfare ships, they have to be built out of wood or fiberglass not metal. Almost all mines are magnetic today, not contact mines that were used seventy years ago.

There was one problem, there were no longer any ship builders alive or who were not retired in America who had the skills and knowledge to build warships out of wood.

When the first new U.S. Navy mine hunter was finally launched, it was well over ten years behind schedule.

This is also something that the anti gun political left forget, it's the civilian sports shooters who keep Colt, Remington, Sturm Ruger, Smith and Wesson, etc. and ammunition manufactures in business, not the U.S. military.
 
Back
Top Bottom