How would a war between N.Korea, China and USA be fought?

[MJR]

Ok, say that with all the rising tensions between N.Korea would spark a war and China happened to join in. Of course the U.S. would be involved so automatically both of our economies would be jacked up as if it is not already. I hear people saying, "Oh, that would be bad for the U.S. because we get everything from there." Guess what? Us not buying anything from them would mean they lose money too. Plus, it is almost just as expensive to buy and ship products from China across the Pacific to the U.S. mainland. So if the U.S. went ahead and starting to develop an independent economy approach, that would boost our economy and give us an advantage and possibly a larger budget for military use.

Now, we all know that China has a large military and out mans us 3:1. That really doesn't matter just more of them in the ground.

Anyway, our Airforce and Navy is far superior to theirs and that is where a lot of the fighting would take place because hopefully we learned from Vietnam. We got plenty of subs equipped with dozens of Tomahawk cruise missiles that would be strategically placed on their densely populated cities. The reason why they cannot do this to us and mimic the attacks is that we have Japan and S.Korea on our side which gives us a zone to deploy, train, and plan attacks which is extremely close to China and N.Korea. China does not so that means it would be way too hard to place any missile strikes on our cities such a L.A., Seattle, and etc. I seriously doubt they would even be accurate or reliable enough to make it that far anyway.

South Korea could hold enough ground to attack and maybe push forward on the peninsula. That is where we would send our troops and the North Korean army would be absolutely devastated because of their poorly trained army. They are not a problem as much as they are annoying pests threatening with nuclear retaliation for no absolute reason.

Now, if they wanted a nuclear war, that would be their worst mistake ever. We have hundreds of ICBMs that would make both countries look like the Moon. Any of the few nukes China would launch at us would be shot down by air defense in S.Korea and Japan. If worst comes to worst and they manage to make it to the coast, then they would be put down by Patriot missiles or another air defense artillery. Ultimately I think it would be a success for the U.S. even though it would take awhile for us to build our economy like I was talking about earlier, but hey, it is already in a crappy situation so what is the problem?

What is your take on this? It sounds like I am anti-Chinese or something, but I am just speaking freely on my opinion in the strategy we would take in a war with them. Also, this is not a, "Who would win this war?", thread. It is simply a, "How would the involved countries play their cards.", thread.

 

[Mantis]

I suspect that it would be pretty much like last time except for the initial North Korean success. The North Korean military is a shell. It's poorly trained, poorly equipped and almost entirely made up of poorly fed conscripts. The South Koreans would annihilate them before the US ever had to get involved. If China intervened, they'd have a numerical advantage but a distinct disadvantage in terms of training, technology and quality (a repeat of the first Korean war). Faced with superior western weapons, the Chinese would lose a hell of a lot of people (which they an afford to do) but they wouldn't accomplish much. They won't even attack Taiwan, which they claim is part of China, because they wouldn't have the strength to overcome the western trained and equipped Taiwanese military. The thing is that I doubt that the Chinese would destroy their economy (they depend very heavily on exports to the west) to save North Korea from a war that they started to begin with! They certainly wouldn't have to covert backing of the Russians this time.

 

[MJR]

I suspect that it would be pretty much like last time except for the initial North Korean success. The North Korean military is a shell. It's poorly trained, poorly equipped and almost entirely made up of poorly fed conscripts. The South Koreans would annihilate them before the US ever had to get involved. If China intervened, they'd have a numerical advantage but a distinct disadvantage in terms of training, technology and quality (a repeat of the first Korean war). The thing is that I doubt that the Chinese would destroy their economy (they depend very heavily on exports to the west) to save North Korea from a war that they started to begin with! They certainly wouldn't have to covert backing of the Russians this time.

That is exactly my second scenario. :thumbup:

 

[N_Molson]

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

Albert Einstein
US (German-born) physicist (1879 - 1955)​

 

[Urwumpe]

No plan survives the first contact with the enemy.

And if you see only one way of winning the war, you should not attack.

Also, the superiority of the US Airforce is currently only known in bombing innocents and missing huge targets. Your statement is hubris. Never forget: US soldiers can die just like North Korean soldiers. And US aircraft can be shot down just like North Korean aircraft. Just by saying "We are the USA", you won't win any battle.

The only way to really win the war I see, is performing necromancy and bring Patton back. No US general has so far shown that he can push his soldiers in the right way. Also the US commands rely more on drugging soldiers than deploying them at the right place. Amphetamines can help, but are no replacement for sleep and careful management of the resource soldier.

If North Korea attacks, you should separate North Korea from China. Just driving your troops up the peninsula will force China to support North Korea for preventing a refugee problem. US soldiers at the border will not be nice for China, but permits them to stay out of the conflict. If millions of North Korean refugees would pass north, China can't stay out, even if they wanted to.

 

[Artlav]

Now, if they wanted a nuclear war, that would be their worst mistake ever. We have hundreds of ICBMs that would make both countries look like the Moon. Any of the few nukes China would launch at us would be shot down by air defense in S.Korea and Japan. If worst comes to worst and they manage to make it to the coast, then they would be put down by Patriot missiles or another air defense artillery.

I was under impression that China have quite a lot of ICBMs, and that the only functional ABM ever to be developed was in USSR.

So, nuclear war with Chinees involvement would result in many million dead on both continents, and nothing more.

 

[Ghostrider]

So, nuclear war with Chinees involvement would result in many million dead on both continents, and nothing more.

Any war with China would result in the iPhone and iPad stopping being produced, resulting in the death of millions of fanboys.

 

[Urwumpe]

So, nuclear war with Chinese involvement would result in many million dead on both continents, and nothing more.

A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.

 

[Mantis]

I was under impression that China have quite a lot of ICBMs, and that the only functional ABM ever to be developed was in USSR.

So, nuclear war with Chinees involvement would result in many million dead on both continents, and nothing more.

I read somewhere that they have about 24 ICBMs. There is no way that China would start a nuclear war to support the North Koreans in a foolish attempt to invade South Korea - even when North Korea was faced with inevitable annihilation by the South Korean military. They'd support them to a point but if they turned around and invaded the south, got crushed and then used nukes resulting in a strong retaliatory strike, I think the Chinese would call it a day rather than triggering a larger nuclear exchange that they could not possibly win.

 

[Urwumpe]

I read somewhere that they have about 24 ICBMs.

That number appears often inside blogs, but does not fit to reality.

http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/China_Military_Report_08.pdf

The number of warheads inside China is around 240, and there are about 40 ICBMs and much more shorter ranged ballistic missiles.

The economic damage by a single ICBM is though much bigger when used against the USA, than by using a ICBM against China. China simply has less to loose. 12 ICBMs could be enough to obliterate the economic center of California completely.

What China has is about 24 missiles that are second strike capable: If the USA would attack China first without warning, China would only have 18-24 missiles that can fire back in the few minutes time. Most Chinese ICBMs need 60 minutes fueling time, pretty much like the old Atlas ICBM. But that kind of attack would also mean the NATO becomes a pure European club, Russia could join forces with China and the USA would be badly isolated. The USA are not that much more important in the world, that they can afford this.

 

[Loru]

Any war with China would result in the iPhone and iPad stopping being produced, resulting in the death of millions of fanboys.

I would risk global thermonuclear conflict to get rid of iCrap hardware

 

[Ark]

I don't think China would let themselves get dragged into a North Korean war.

 

[Mantis]

I don't think China would let themselves get dragged into a North Korean war.

I don't think so either - especially another Korean war of North Korean making. It simply wouldn't make sense for them to destroy their economy to prop up the North Koreans and there would be no way for them to win anyway.

---------- Post added at 10:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:36 AM ----------

The economic damage by a single ICBM is though much bigger when used against the USA, than by using a ICBM against China. China simply has less to loose. 12 ICBMs could be enough to obliterate the economic center of California completely.

By the same token, 12 US ICBMs could quite easily turn Beijing or Shanghai into a radioactive parking lot. I also doubt that NATO would, in the face of an attack on the US, fail to do it's duty under article V.

Really it comes down to this....are the North Koreans crazy enough to launch a war against the south that they cannot possibly win and if so, how far would China go to back them up? Personally, I don't believe that China would be soo foolish as to get into a nuclear exchange or even a conventional war with the west over Korea especially not in response to a war started by the North Koreans. Even a conventional war limited to Korea would be devastating in the extreme to the Chinese economy - imagine what would happen to their economy if suddenly all exports to the west dried up.

 

[MJR]

No plan survives the first contact with the enemy.

And if you see only one way of winning the war, you should not attack.

Also, the superiority of the US Airforce is currently only known in bombing innocents and missing huge targets. Your statement is hubris. Never forget: US soldiers can die just like North Korean soldiers. And US aircraft can be shot down just like North Korean aircraft. Just by saying "We are the USA", you won't win any battle.

The only way to really win the war I see, is performing necromancy and bring Patton back. No US general has so far shown that he can push his soldiers in the right way. Also the US commands rely more on drugging soldiers than deploying them at the right place. Amphetamines can help, but are no replacement for sleep and careful management of the resource soldier.




If North Korea attacks, you should separate North Korea from China. Just driving your troops up the peninsula will force China to support North Korea for preventing a refugee problem. US soldiers at the border will not be nice for China, but permits them to stay out of the conflict. If millions of North Korean refugees would pass north, China can't stay out, even if they wanted to.

I never said we were invincible, but we do have the latest technological advances and weapons. We already have B-1s and other stealth bombers in S.Korea at the moment. All of their artillery is placed near the DMZ so if we concentrate attacks there then we can pretty much move forward and attack them when they are weak. I don't see them with F-35's or F-22's.

When you talk about how the U.S. Airforce is only known in bombing incidents and nothing serious...that is pretty funny. In Iraq and Afghanistan there are no real targets nowadays such as large depots or anythingworthy of sending a B-2 to drop a 2000-lb JDAM. We have much confidence in our artillery and aviation and take pride in that. Heck, we have been so accurate that we have dropped bombs in the smokestack of a fireplace.

Yes, it is true that technically you can't win a war, but you can devastate a once powerful country. *Hint* *Hint* WW2. But how come we lost Vietnam then? We did not. We did not accomplish our goals, but we were decisive in almost every single of the battles including the Tet offensive which was their most aggressive push especially in Hue.

Oh yeah, read this article too. It even says China has only about 20 ICBMs. Right from the CIA.

https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2000/nio_speech_020900.html

 

[Urwumpe]

I never said we were invincible, but we do have the latest technological advances and weapons. We already have B-1s and other stealth bombers in S.Korea at the moment. All of their artillery is placed near the DMZ so if we concentrate attacks there then we can pretty much move forward and attack them when they are weak. I don't see them with F-35's or F-22's.

No. But can a F-35 or a F-22 conquer a country? The 2003 invasion of Iraq is still a on-going military operation - it lasts already longer than WW2.

Also, the B-1B is obsolete and rarely used in operations since 1990, what you mean is the B-2, a strategic bomber that is rare and getting rarer.

Sorry, but all that futile talking about US Air Power is video game bragging. You can impress people at 4chan with that. But anybody who actually did serve in the military should know well enough, that the US Air Force is pretty saturated with hot air balloons. Only the A-10 pilots are really worth their weight in gold, but these are also pretty hated in the Air Force, because they are too friendly to the Army and Marines.

The Air force can make pretty figures in the sky, but still, a poor old soldier from the heartland has defend the ground. A M-1 tank is impressive, but without fuel it is just decorating the landscape. And the fuel for the tanks is transported again by normal everyday soldiers in pretty normal fuel trucks, that can be destroyed even by small arms fire. And North Korea does not have such nice, flat terrain like the center of Iraq.

When you talk about how the U.S. Airforce is only known in bombing incidents and nothing serious...that is pretty funny. In Iraq and Afghanistan there are no real targets nowadays such as large depots or anythingworthy of sending a B-2 to drop a 2000-lb JDAM. We have much confidence in our artillery and aviation and take pride in that. Heck, we have been so accurate that we have dropped bombs in the smokestack of a fireplace.

Did you read the statistics about Desert Storm and the Kosovo conflict?

No?

Would maybe be interesting for you, because what you saw in the "press shows" of the Air Force back then, had been only the successful operations, the majority of incidents had been not shown then. The known information about operations in Afghanistan or Operation Iraqi Freedom is not changing this, to the contrary: The number of blue-on-blue incidents increased, and the difficult close air support is in a bad shape.

Again, real life is no video game.

Yes, it is true that technically you can't win a war, but you can devastate a once powerful country. *Hint* *Hint* WW2. But how come we lost Vietnam then? We did not. We did not accomplish our goals, but we were decisive in almost every single of the battles including the Tet offensive which was their most aggressive push especially in Hue.

Oh yes, the UK had been badly devastated. Also, your knowledge about Vietnam is not existing - if the USA won every battle in a decisive way, how did they then loose the war? The reality is different: All tactical victories in large scale engagements in Vietnam had been pointless because the strategical situation developed to the disadvantage of the USA.

Oh yeah, read this article too. It even says China has only about 20 ICBMs. Right from the CIA.

https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2000/nio_speech_020900.html

You are aware that this page is ten years old?

 

[MJR]

No. But can a F-35 or a F-22 conquer a country? The 2003 invasion of Iraq is still a on-going military operation - it lasts already longer than WW2.

Also, the B-1B is obsolete and rarely used in operations since 1990, what you mean is the B-2, a strategic bomber that is rare and getting rarer.

Sorry, but all that futile talking about US Air Power is video game bragging. You can impress people at 4chan with that. But anybody who actually did serve in the military should know well enough, that the US Air Force is pretty saturated with hot air balloons. Only the A-10 pilots are really worth their weight in gold, but these are also pretty hated in the Air Force, because they are too friendly to the Army and Marines.

The Air force can make pretty figures in the sky, but still, a poor old soldier from the heartland has defend the ground. A M-1 tank is impressive, but without fuel it is just decorating the landscape. And the fuel for the tanks is transported again by normal everyday soldiers in pretty normal fuel trucks, that can be destroyed even by small arms fire. And North Korea does not have such nice, flat terrain like the center of Iraq.




Did you read the statistics about Desert Storm and the Kosovo conflict?

No?

Would maybe be interesting for you, because what you saw in the "press shows" of the Air Force back then, had been only the successful operations, the majority of incidents had been not shown then. The known information about operations in Afghanistan or Operation Iraqi Freedom is not changing this, to the contrary: The number of blue-on-blue incidents increased, and the difficult close air support is in a bad shape.

Again, real life is no video game.



Oh yes, the UK had been badly devastated. Also, your knowledge about Vietnam is not existing - if the USA won every battle in a decisive way, how did they then loose the war? The reality is different: All tactical victories in large scale engagements in Vietnam had been pointless because the strategical situation developed to the disadvantage of the USA.



You are aware that this page is ten years old?

We did not meet our goals in Vietnam politically, but not on the battlefield. We lost 50k relative to 2mil. They sure won.....

I never said one plane could win a war, but it is the technology that I was talking about.

As a matter of fact, my dad was enlisted for 9 years, been to Iraq for 13 months straight, been blown up by an IED, was located in Ramadi when it was horrible, been to Korea, now he is an officer. Also, my father, not dad, was in Special Forces during Vietnam, Desert Storm, and Operation Gothic Serpent. Retired as a Lt. Col and worked for Lockheed Martin. I live next to one of the largest military bases as well. I am pretty sure I know what happens.

And no, life is not a video game because I read my dads books (FM) on CAS missions and it is very difficult. Don't make assumptions that I am downgrading everything to a completely unrealistic way.

And what has China done in the last ten years to show that they advanced in nuclear technology. Iran is making more progress.

 

[jedidia]

We did not meet our goals in Vietnam politically, but not on the battlefield.

:facepalm:

you DO know the reason why a war is fought, right? If you don't reach your "political" goals, you didn't win the war. The Viet Kong HAS reached its political goals, and therefore won it. It doesn't matter what the body count is. They may have won it in a terribly inefficient way, but they still WON!

 

[MJR]

:facepalm:

you DO know the reason why a war is fought, right? If you don't reach your "political" goals, you didn't win the war. The Viet Kong HAS reached its political goals, and therefore won it. It doesn't matter what the body count is. They may have won it in a terribly inefficient way, but they still WON!

I know that, but people make it seem like we got our behinds whopped which is not true. I am defending the fact that we really should have won and were on the track to, but they had to pull us out.

 

[Urwumpe]

PrS: Read this one first: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_People's_Army

Judging the reference, it is a pretty good public summary of what sits around there.

We did not meet our goals in Vietnam politically, but not on the battlefield. We lost 50k relative to 2mil. They sure won.....

Loosing a single one is already pretty bad, if you gained nothing by it. Also the costs for the Vietnam war had been already then pretty extreme for the gains.

I never said one plane could win a war, but it is the technology that I was talking about.

Technology does not win battles. Humans do. Apollo landed on the moon with 1960s technology...

As a matter of fact, my dad was enlisted for 9 years, been to Iraq for 13 months straight, been blown up by an IED, was located in Ramadi when it was horrible, been to Korea, now he is an officer. Also, my father, not dad, was in Special Forces during Vietnam, Desert Storm, and Operation Gothic Serpent. Retired as a Lt. Col and worked for Lockheed Martin. I live next to one of the largest military bases as well. I am pretty sure I know what happens.

You don't. You only say you do, because somebody else you know has experience with the reality of it. But you seem to be a poor listener.

And no, life is not a video game because I read my dads books on CAS missions and it is very difficult. Don't make assumptions that I am downgrading everything to a completely unrealistic way.

You still do. Books. Before I was in the army, books painted a clinically clean image of war. Even "Nothing new on the western front" does not even slightly depict well, what you experience in your guts, when you are under attack. And if you then remember that every soldier, enlisted and officer, experiences the same emotions and confusions during a battle, you maybe guess how easy it is to underestimate the enemy. The ally of the enemy could be your own army. A small artillery strike could be at the same time overestimated by you, or underestimated. Even if you are wearing more stars than the Pleiades, you are not immune to confusion and poor judgment. Having read your Clausewitz or Sun-Tzu without laughing about the primitive technology at that time is mandatory sometimes.

And now you think, you can predict the future better and say that attacking North Korea would be an easy job, because you have the better gimmicks?

Did you read about the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Bulge"]Battle of the Bulge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] ? Maybe you should, because there can be parallels to North Korea in what awaits you.

---------- Post added at 07:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:15 PM ----------

I know that, but people make it seem like we got our behinds whopped which is not true.

You are right. You actually got your behinds whopped and kicked into the face, ridiculed right in public. You got chased through the town naked. If the Russians wouldn't have lost Afghanistan a few years later in the same technological hubris, the pain would still be higher.

I am defending the fact that we really should have won and were on the track to, but they had to pull us out.

"We should have won". But you didn't. What a pity, isn't it? Germany should also have won the war against the UK. Or the war against the USSR. But they didn't. And that not because their opponents had been overwhelming - most damage was caused by Hitler himself and his lack of proper judgment when it comes to military decisions.

You have been on the track to win? You mean the winning trophy for the fastest retreat south? The USA had been fighting a lost war longer than necessary, that is also a fact, many soldiers could have been saved from death and imprisonment. The USA had a weak start in Vietnam, and then didn't adapt fast enough.

 

[Ghostrider]

I know that, but people make it seem like we got our behinds whopped which is not true. I am defending the fact that we really should have won and were on the track to, but they had to pull us out.

That's because battles are a purely military affair: if you reach your tactical objectives which are pretty simple (hold, take, destroy and very little else) you have won. Wars on the other hand are mainly a political - and hence more complicated - thing. You can win all the battles and still lose the war because 1) the enemy can take more losses than you're capable of inflicting 2) the engagement ends up costing more than any possible gain 3) you simply can't afford the losses. Like in the popular board game analogy to war, Chess, you can capture my Queen, my knights, my bishops and my rooks but if with a couple of pawns I can checkmate your King, I won.