Between a rock and a hard place

[KrazyHorse]

? In Kuwait they were an invading force. They had to occupy the country, in addition to protecting the SA border, the Syrian border and keeping an eye on the Iranian border.

Sure the 6 months probably helped them. But they were whipped before they started to fight. Too much ground, nowhere to hide.

[TCO]

We were a lot further from our borders...

[KrazyHorse]

How big's your shipping capacity again, GP?

[KrazyHorse]

They couldn't attack your lines of supply. You could attack theirs. That makes a bit of a difference too.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Frogger
How big's your shipping capacity again, GP?

A lot slower and less than their capacity to just drive down the highway. but irrelevant. You made a point about time to dig in. They had 6 months of knowing an invasion was coming.

[Ted Striker]

Well them Koreans have a nice network of tunnels dug in.

But that doesn't work anymore.

[lightblue]

Gulf War 2 would be a walk in the park, and could be started and finished in the very near future (I keep hearin second half of February). It is quite clear to see that whatever else happens it is more than likely going to be done, otherwise Bush would not have moved another 60000+ personnel out to the Gulf over the last weekend.

Korea would be an awful lot harder though. The terrain does not suit mass tank warfare which is how the iraqis were mopped up after being bombed for 3 weeks. It'd be more like Afghanistan, but against an army which is fairly well equipped/trained and not a ragtag mob of muhajeddin with AK47s and some Stingers.

Not to forget that the threat of a nuclear escalation is very much more of a threat in NKs case than Iraq. The furthest Iraq will (can probably) go is chemical weapons. NK is thought to have chemical weapons, biological weapons, nuclear weapons and long range missiles. i have read that analysts expect that NK will have intercontinental missiles capable of reaching hawaii or Alaska within the next 5 years. All in all a different proposition than Iraq.

[Ted Striker]

If we could get China to go along, and shut down the border (allowing only refugees across and not trade) we could completely starve the Koreans army to its knees.

[orange]

lightblue - what do you base the first part of your post on. I've heard everything from 6 months to 2 years with 30 years of occupation necessary for installing a working regime. Now, granted that's probably a little exaggerated, but where do you get <1 month?

[TCO]

WE don't know for sure that the NK have nukes yet.

[TCO]

Originally posted by orange
lwith 30 years of occupation necessary for installing a working regime.

This is the part that worries me. I mean heck, we're still occupying Germany!

I don't want those Iraqi's getting all dependant on us, expecting us to fight all their wars for them.

[lightblue]

Originally posted by orange
lightblue - what do you base the first part of your post on. I've heard everything from 6 months to 2 years with 30 years of occupation necessary for installing a working regime. Now, granted that's probably a little exaggerated, but where do you get <1 month?

I meant that it would start in the end of Feb, not finished.

As for when it would finish, I'd say if you do it the way you have been fighting your wars, you'll bomb them to pieces (thoguh I am not sure there's much armor/planes/airfields etc left to bomb) for a couple of weeks and then send in the ground troops. If you go for an inside-out approach and drop people in or near Baghdad you'll have Saddam on the run/dead within weeks and resistance would be limited to small pockets of loyalists (Republican Guard perhaps).

Yes you will have to stay and manage the place for a bit, like you did in Japan after WW2. A lot of the troops will be freed up though.

[Sikander]

I think the #1 priority for the U.S. is to stall here until the situation in Iraq comes into clearer focus. Of course the NKs are putting the pedal to the metal because of the situation in Iraq. Once Iraq is either a no-go or gone, the U.S. can speak with more authority. Thus all of this backpedalling, New Mexican diplomacy etc. may serve to confuse the NKs and draw the whole thing out.

In the long run I think everyone in the region is on the same page. This regime must go. While the Chinese probably wouldn't be thrilled with a unified Korea on their border, they may find it the preferable alternative to a nuclear armed crazy capable of striking or drawing in the world's greatest nuclear powers, as well as 3 of the G7 states. NK might even spur the Japanese and SKs to start their own nuclear programs, which China definitely doesn't want (but which wouldn't be bad for the U.S., at least in the short run).

[TCO]

Yeah. I agree with Sikie.

[David Floyd]

Except on the subject of potential Japanese nuclear armament - I'll go with MtG on that one, in that I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell of that happening.