With the situation in Iraq, the current war in Afganastan, and with North Korea’s recent aggressions, is the United States and its allies capable of supporting a possible three front war?
Depends on how big the conflicts are. I’m sure the CINCs that be can best economize the forces that exist to meet whatever threat that’s out there.
Tripler
Besides, I’m here. What better weapon do you need?
You can’t really call Afghanistan a ‘front’. I don’t think it is a significant factor in U.S. warmaking capability.
The big risk is having to fight Iraq and North Korea at the same time. That’s going to completely depend on how those wars go.
Best case scenario: The war in Iraq lasts about three days, and there is no military action in North Korea.
Possible scenario: The war in Iraq devolves into urban warfare in Baghdad, which would tie up a significant number of ground troops, but free up all the tanks and heavy-lift stuff for use elsewhere. North Korea becomes even more belligerant, and the U.S. builds up troops in South Korea and takes out the nuclear reactors in Noth Korea. Expensive, but do-able.
The Nightmare Scenario: Turkey and Saudi Arabia refuse access to the U.S. Iraq digs in and uses chemical and biological weapons. A dozen SCUD missiles hit Israel, loaded with chemical and bio weapons, and thousands die. Israel retaliates strongly, and the whole middle east threatens to explode, forcing the U.S. to move even more troops into the region. Iraq still falls, but not after bloody street fighting which causes the U.S. to take a severe PR hit. In the meantime, North Korea does something amazingly stupid like launching a nuke at South Korea or Japan, and all-out war breaks out, leading to an invasion of North Korea with the intention of toppling the government. This would be a massive undertaking, and would likely involve many other nations.
The ‘nightmare scenario’ is pretty darned unlikely, but good military leaders prepare for the worst. So I’m sure there are a few midnight candles burning in the Pentagon as they grapple with all the possibilities.
Shouldn’t this be in Great Debates?
Yeah, that middle one looks most likely.
Though there’s always the possibility that the Chinese, not wanting US troops to stomp North Korea and end up on the Chinese border, stomp North Korea themselves and just end that whole mess.
interesting idea. Not sure if they want to though. I think the Chinese know better than anyone the depths of N. Korea’s problems. China’s having a tough enough time economically in their own Northeast.
I do believe that China does not fear a US invasion any more and may actually tolerate American troops on the Yalu River, especially under UN auspices of which China is a part.
The USA cannot sustain three fronts without a total commitment from the American People.
For me that means …
- Implementing a draft.
- Placing the country on a total war footing.
- Eliminating the American Couch Potato Disease overnight.
I wonder if Bush is one of the Four Horsemen?
There’s always the Israeli solution. It’s hard to hide a nuclear plant. Just bomb the hell out of it, and have done. It doesn’t need to be an actual war.
If any strike is made on North Korea, they will retaliate on a massive scale. South Korea will fold like a house of cards. I would be very surprised if the North did NOT go nuclear. But beyond that, Seoul would be battered beyond recognition by the shear number of rockets and artillery pieces leveled at it.
No, I don’t want to see an American city nuked by these crazy bastards, so flying in and taking out “just that reactor” is a silly idea.
The Bush Administration recently removed the title of CINC from anyone except GW*
And the answer is not even two.
I am aware that North Korea would want to retaliate. However, I have trouble believing they could successfully deliver a nuclear device to North America through any reliable means. (Yes, I am aware of the possibility of one through shipping)
I agree that it might be possible that Seoul would be blown to heck and back. I don’t know. It’s equally possible that they might back down and deal with political pressures instead.
The point, such as it was, that I was making, is that the Korea issue is something that can be dealt with in ways other than a full-fledged invasion. I recall the F-111 raid on Quadaffi and what it did to terrorism for a long while. It can be effective. It might not be the optimal solution. I don’t know what is.
I’m pretty sure that, at this moment, a full second front on the war is not needed, but Korea is trying to pull something while America is occupied with Iraq.
I’m also pretty sure that they are probably, if they persist, going to get smacked hard. Perhaps by both China and the US. China’s probably even less thrilled than Shrub is, about this. I think it’s the usual round of bluff and counter-bluff. And then people die.
I also think that it’s very unlikely that Americans would fight house to house in a city. But that’s just my opinion here… we’re much more likely to try to evacuate people and then blow the hell out of it.
Just three fronts?
You are forgetting:
The war on poverty (declared March 16, 1964) and still ongoing, and
The war on drugs (the date on this one is a bit dicey–in the modern sense, this would be Nixon in '72 or so, though a case could be made for 1875 for the San Francisco anti-opium ordinance).
Whether we should open a 6th front as a war on hyperbole would be a matter for GD
–jack
South Korea is quite the powerhouse, militarily. N.Korea could launch a ‘damaging’ attack, but the threat of SKbeing overrun has long since expired.
You also forget the presence of the joint security forces (s. Korean, US and UN) combat troops in the DMZ, which is heavily fortified including a serious number of landmines. Please keep in mind that S. Korea has been preparing to invade against an invasion from N. Korea for about 50 years now.
Also, this time around, China won’t be on the side of N. Korea. Nor will Russia add it’s support.
Question for the China Guy. How not-happy is China about this? I mean, we’re presupposing China’s not happy with Korea. Maybe we’re wrong. I mean, I wouldn’t be, but… you’re on the spot. How’s the crisis looking?
When? I was in the military not too awful long ago, and I worked for a CINC (not directly). And why . . . ostensibly, that is, because I think I know the real reasons. Cite if one is handy?
And please be careful. I notice that you now have 665 posts. I would hate for you to waste 666 on something so trivial as my curiosity.
The REAL question here is, “Can the US Sustain ANY of These WARS?” Because, as much faith as I have in our military forces…exemplified by our own Dopers such as Tripler and AirmanDoors…the fact is, the majority of the US population (including me, FYI) does NOT seem to be in favor of war of ANY kind that is not sanctioned by the UN.
And that doesn’t seem to be of concern to our leader.
So what I am afraid of is another Vietnam.
Don’t get me wrong here…if our military is forced into war, then I am behind THEM 120%…that doesn’t mean I support the WAR or the person who SENT them to risk death.
BUT if they have to GO, they have my support.
**
I question this, solely on the basis that:
- We only have evidence that the North Koreans (NKs) have tactical missiles, and they could pound the hell out of Seoul to a certain point. Should they have more, we also have bases with fighers that could do their best to beat the launchers on the ground.
- Ther are a lot of US strategic and intelligence assets pointed at North Korea enough to see a NK Colonel taking a leak on a DMZ-designated rock . . .
They won’t and they can’t. The NKs don’t currently have the technology to do so. And even if they did “get that reactor up and running”, keep in mind we have a handful of 688I’s in the Pacific that could launch a few TLAMs to quietly knock it out, and nobody would be the wiser. . .
Tripler
With Powell on the Cabinet, I have a lot of faith in things. . .
While I’ll cede that most Americans have a moderately favorable view of the UN, by no means do most Americans think we should insert thumbs in ass and wait for them, when it is time to be serious. Cite.
What is the state of North Korea’s armed forces in terms of morale and training? I know they’ve got some 600,000+ troops under arms as opposed to South Korea’s 300,000+ ROKs. I’ve never heard the ROKs described as anything but competent and highly motivated.
South Korea has an army of roughly 560,000 with at least 1,000,000 organized reserves ( though I’ve seen much higher total reserve estimates ). North Korea has an army of roughly 1,000,000 with most of the adult population placed in some sort of reserve or militia organization ( the usual number of non-militia army reserves is cited at 1.7 million ). North Korea also has a large cited numerical advantage in tanks, artillery, combat aircraft and a smaller advantage in APC’s.
However all of that is deceptive. South Korea has more than twice the population, three times the military budget ( but a much smaller percentage of GNP ) and something like 30 times the industrial capacity of North Korea. South Korea is generally better armed and equipped, with at least some of North Korea’s antiquated inventory of equipment being considered barely operable, if that ( they apparently still have a couple hundred WW II-vintage T-34 tanks listed in their order of battle ). Training and morale I won’t swear to, but I’d be inclined to give the edge in at least the first to South Korea - They have a very professional reputation. Further lack of fuel and ammo seems to limit NK training exercises. However North Korea does provide their army with the meager best North Korea can provide, so the better units may be in reasonable shape and pretty loyal.
I’d say North Korea’s only chance would be to win quickly, in one massive push. Given the state of the defenses along the border, I would think that is very unlikely to happen, even excluding the U.S. from the scenario. In any protracted war, it’s going to be the Union vs. The Confederacy all over again - i.e. North Korea will eventually get ground down by South Korea’s greater manpower pool and their large technical and enormous economic superiority. MHO.
- Tamerlane