If the US went into syria/jordan then the problem with fanatics would get 100 times worse. Yes syria is in the US 'axis of evil' but jordan is an 'ally'. and it wouldmake all muslims angry with the US. I dont think going to NK is a good idea for the US military, its already facing a big enough pproblem in iraq without fighting another war which the fanatics are bound to take advantage of as the military would be stretched too thin. NK is best left to the politicians. A war in korea could lead to WW3 or a nuclear winter.

Originally Posted by 7.62

We could defeat NK. Saddam needed to be gone andit hapened. The biggest mistake we're making now is not going into Syria and Jordan. Thats where the fanatics are comimg from.

Strange most of the "fanatics" you read about these days are Saudi or Yemeni.

Originally Posted by rkmac48

Please, tell me you're kidding. It's this ignorant sort of attitude that leads to negative attitudes about the United States and President Bush... not his actions.


I hope, for your sake, that you made that comment as rhetoric, and that you don't actually believe what you wrote.

The word scared isn't good enough to describe the scenario, but one can say that the US knows it won't be as clean a sweep as Iraq, it would be hell tough to get NK bend on its knees

US warns Iran and Syria that they could be the next Iraq... but when it comes to NK the US keeps repeating "Please note that, We have no intentions of attacking North Korea"... again and again and again and again

Now that surely indicates something doesn't it

Originally Posted by Xion

US warns Iran and Syria that they could be the next Iraq... but when it comes to NK the US keeps repeating "Please note that, We have no intentions of attacking North Korea"... again and again and again and again

Now that surely indicates something doesn't it

Umm, that we know that North Korea is run by a bunch of unstable freaks who have NO compunctions about slaughtering ANYONE AND EVERYONE if it gets them what they want - that is, a unified Korea under THEIR control

Xion, The big differences here are:

1. Even at their worst, the Iranian and Syrian Governments are no where near as unstable as North Korean is.

2. The terrain in Korea, is really really tough and densely populated (well, in the South anyway) - much more so that Iran or Syria. I know, I've been in South Korea and I have studied Syria and Iran a bit. 03USMC is absolutely correct in his assessment.

3. The NKPA has chemical, probably biological and possibly nuclear weapons and might use them at any time.

Add it all up, throw in the regional politics (very complex) and you can see why we don't want to push military force as our primary tool. Remember what Karl von Clausewitz said about politics and war.

Originally Posted by Xion

The word scared isn't good enough to describe the scenario, but one can say that the US knows it won't be as clean a sweep as Iraq, it would be h**l tough to get NK bend on its knees

US warns Iran and Syria that they could be the next Iraq... but when it comes to NK the US keeps repeating "Please note that, We have no intentions of attacking North Korea"... again and again and again and again

Now that surely indicates something doesn't it

On the other hand, the religious fanaticism of the Iraqis, via the Muslim faith, contributes greatly to their resistance. I'm not sure that the North Koreans have any particular religion; I suspect (perhaps out of ignorance) that they're largely atheistic.

They'd be hard, but not THAT hard.

Their religion is the State and the personality cult of Kim Jong Il. This is the last Stalinist state on Earth (and the last, I hope), people there either believe or they don't last long.

Remember, the North Korean "Government" TOTALLY controls what the North Korean people see and hear - no satellite TV as in Teheran.

The terrain in North Korea is very, very tough and they have had a long, long time to dig in.

other than having "deposed a murderous dictator" what gains would there be from invading and defeating NK? are they rich in natural resources?
hypothetically, it would take a lot more than just a US force as they would never attack unless they could fully cover all thier other bases and i dont think that many other countries, despite being US allies, are terribly keen on invading or sending troops to NK, where Kim Jong will be all to happy to drop NBK weapons on them.
that and another war would most likely have a pretty big effect on the american economy, which would probably result in a strengthening in chinas economy which would make them the even more obvious world superpower.
it is too much trouble to invade, it is much easier to complain to the UN and other watchdogs about voilations, but its not like they will do anything other than issue a statement, they are too afraid

This is addressed to you "hipshooters" and anybody else commenting on an issue here they know little about:

A Marine SSG and an Army Lt. Col. have both already told you so you hardly need an Army Major to join in, but I will anyways. Korea is a very different terrain, a very different apponent, and a very different situation than what occurred and is occuring in the Middle East. Gunner13 is quite correct in citing Clausewitz. For those not familiar I will fill in the Colonel's blank - "War is nothing but a continuation of politics by other means." That means a continuation when politics have been exhausted. They haven't yet. It is in everyone's interest to find a solution without battle, but if battle comes we would surely win. Even so it would be extremely costly and such a battle should only be fought when a greater danger exists than does exist today.

about "we would surely win" that probably what the NK troops are told as well. and the germans during WW2, and the Japanese. itall comes down to what propaganda you believe. you have to be made to belive you will win, because people will not fight if they know they will loose.

as a matter of interest, what are the contrasting size of NK and USA's militaries?

North Korea:

Military branches: Korean People's Army (includes Army, Navy, Air Force), Civil Security Forces

Military manpower—military age: 18 years of age

Military manpower—availability:
males age 15-49: 5,768,038 (1999 est.)

Military manpower—fit for military service:
males age 15-49: 3,483,188 (1999 est.)

Military manpower—reaching military age annually:
males: 177,888 (1999 est.)

Military expenditures—dollar figure: $5 billion to $7 billion (1997 est.)

Military expenditures—percent of GDP: 25% to 33% (1997 est.)


United States:

Military branches: Department of the Army, Department of the Navy (includes Marine Corps), Department of the Air Force
note: the Coast Guard falls under the Department of Transportation, but in wartime reports to the Department of the Navy

Military manpower—military age: 18 years of age

Military manpower—fit for military service:
males age 15-49: NA (but you can bet ALOT more than now if a serious threat existed)

Military expenditures—dollar figure: $267.2 billion (1997 est.)

Military expenditures—percent of GDP: 3.4% (1997 est.)


Source: http://www.umsl.edu/services/govdocs/wofact99/5.htm


I'm not spouting rhetoric. North Korea is no match for the US in an all-out war. You may remember that if they pull the nuke card we have plenty more than they do. We have an ability to bomb, fire missles etc. also much greater than their's. It would be no cake walk and we would lose a great deal of people but North Korea would most surely fall. That's not propaganda - that's logistics.