Honestly, in many ways, I think China has kept the US from doing something rather stupid. Look at how well freeing Iraq and Afghanistan worked out. It took 10 years and it's still a cluster fuck. NK has a larger, better trained, and more loyal army than those two countries combined did. It really will be a disaster when we go to war with them.

I don't know if Afghanistan fits the comparison, but Iraq does, as does Vietnam, and none have turned out well. I don't think there is a single military mission since World War II that the USA got involved in that went well anyway. Maybe you could call the aversion of war in 1962 a success, and maybe you could call the repelling of Iraqi forces in Kuwait a success, but certainly not major ones in hindsight.

Yeah, you're right about Afg., but my point remains.

One important difference though, abge. South Korea has a stable and effective government, which means if there were a war, and assuming the US/South Korea won, the peace should be easier to win too.

Of course it would still be disaster if the is a war.

Yeah, but how stable will SK be if Seoul is leveled?

I'm not so sure South Korea would be in great shape if there ends up being a war though. It may happen that they are involved in the peace process but it will likely be decided by other nations. Ideally a unification of Korea would occur as well and that the South Korean governing bodies could guide it back into a stable area with financial aid from UN nations (hypothetically, of course).

Early last week China announced that it would no longer support North Korea.
North Korea now has no allies except for the few people they sell weapons to, which is probably nothing more than a few small terrorist groups.

forget atom bombs, NKs artillery alone would wreak unbelievable destruction before allied forces have any time to react

China or no any full scale outbreak would kill hundreds of thousands more likely millions in a short amount of time. It is an option that shouldn't be considered seriously.

The us would mercilessly blow North Korea away. Their military is weak and they have few operating missiles. The US could win the war in a weak without sending troops away from a tv screen. The technological advantage that the US has is too great for North Korea to come close to challenging. The only iffy part is if China will declare war/embargo/hate upon us. Other than that, North Korea might be able to hit Seoul with one rocket, but US missile defense systems will probably take care of any rockets that they fire.

War ought to be avoided for the sake of the citizens of NK, although their situation might improve if there was complete chaos.

You don't know what you are talking about. This isn't the deserts of Iraq, this is a militarized frontier that has been fortified for 70 years. NK has artillery capable of destroying cities before allied forces can react. Their army is over a million strong. For the civilians of the whole Korean Peninsula this would be a bloodbath.

"I don't think there is a single military mission since World War II that the USA got involved in that went well anyway."

The Korean War was a resounding success--South Korea was saved, but at the same time WW3 was avoided.

We had won the Vietnam War by 1972, but threw it away after that.

Grenada, Panama, Yugoslavia--these small engagements all were successful.

Both Iraq wars were successful. We won the Iraq War in a matter of weeks in 2003. And we defeated the insurgency in 2007.

Oh, yeah, we won the Cold War too. Without the world being destroyed in a nuclear holocaust.

@dip ... I pointed out the Cold War. Otherwise, in the USA at least, achieving your mission doesn't mean much if you don't turn the nation into a democratic world, as the government has sought to do in most incursions since the end of WW2.

@ted ... "The US could win the war in a weak without sending troops away from a tv screen." We heard that in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam too. That's a dangerous statement. I agree with your point, though, that North Korea's military isn't remotely close to ours, but the point still stands that it won't be as easy as we'd like to think.

@HumanWave ... do you have any numbers or reports to back you up on that? If you do, I'd love to see them.

Trying to spread "democracy" through war was a fool's errand, and we've been fools to try and do it. Establishing regimes that are friendly to the US--that's a worthwhile and feasible goal.

I disagree strongly with the parallel with Iraq, as the religious dimension appears to be missing entirely. Another reason is that if the western forces defeat NK/China in a conflict and the country is occupied, it will probably be brought under Seoul, much like former East Germany was run from Bonn in the first years after unification. Iraq did not have a neighboring state that had any legitimate claim to it.
The reason China doesn't want US involvement has little to do with fuzzy feelings about preventing a second Iraq, its fear is the exact opposite: a stable US ally immediately south of its boarder.
In any event, nuclear proliferation is one of the great dangers of our time.

The North Koreans have 13000 pieces of artillery dug in at the Border, they have at least 300 rockets positioned there. These forces are dug in in places specifically designed the withstand allied air strikes. Mountain caves, bunkers etc. soel is only 30 miles from the dmz well within range of many of these guns.

*Seoul

Any sources or are you hanging out there taking pictures?

DPRK is much more similar to Vietnam than Iraq.

No it's actually very different from Vietnam it's more like Afghanistan... With a million man army, armor, and an positions continually fortified over 70 years

13000 is a widely accepted number go on google type in 13000 and artillery and North Korea. Enjoy.

Do you honestly believe that the North Koreans are any more capable than the Iraq army? The "war" would be over before it even started. Yes, there would be destruction on the SK side, but the north has no real infrastructure to keep an long term engagement. Do not disregard the air superiority that would occur. NK could be wiped out of existence. It is China that wants a buffer between their border and democracy, and the North exists for this sole reason. If China turns on them...hell, if China just stops sending them food, the north starves to death in no time.

yes, I do, and so do military experts, they are better prepared better armed and are defending much better terrain.

Honestly this whole discussion is a case in point of the erroneous precedent set by operation desert storm. No, not every way the US fights will be a lighting advance across enemy territory. That was achieved from aerial superiority over desert terrain and an enemy that had mere months to prepare. This is a completely different situation.

bottom line is that the human cost makes this whole prospect moot. All you little arm chair generals can prognosticate all you want. Yes we would likely win a war of attrition with the north. Is that end worth the death of millions? Please grow up.

Yes, it is a completely different situation. But the air superiority will end this quickly. The north is set to fight a war from the past. A ground war. This will not be a ground war. This will be a war from the skys. Our biggest asset will be the aircraft carriers. Since the DMZ is the largest mined area in the world, no one will be charging across it on the ground. And there is no way that NK can stand up to our air force. None. We won't kill all of their troops, but we will cripple their ability to conduct war.

@Human - "Please grow up." No need to respond to this. If you want to argue with children, go do it somewhere else.

No they are not set up for a ground war, they are dug in for a war of attrition to make every advance costly and to make the cost of war too much for every invasion. What good are aircraft carriers against artillery positions dug into mountain bunkers? How do you stop 13.000 artillery shells multiplied by several rounds per hour aimed at South Korean population and military centers. Think about Tora Bora with instead of some hold out taliban militia several hundred thousand trained troops.

"@Human - "Please grow up." No need to respond to this. If you want to argue with children, go do it somewhere else."

how can anybody but a child see war as a prospect of Army vs. Army anymore...