For starters, the size of the military, Korea has a total of 7,769,000 personnel in the army, while the US has 2,072,950. US naval force is not that relevant here since the most vulnerable attack for that would be in the South, which is where it’s most connected to the sea, and the air force has been proven to not be that effective against guerrilla warfare, you need to use an insane amount of ammunition like they did in Laos.
China will probably not participate, but it won’t allow US navy ships next to its shores, and if you think Russia, Iran, Syria and some other countries will not help NK you are delirious. Simply by the number of soldiers NK can win a war of attrition.
For starters, how useful is that army? The US has a smaller force, but far better equipment. North Korea’s equipment is decades out of date. The army also takes time to call up. Ultimately, it would be a slaughter.
I don’t think Russia, Iran, and Syria would be in any position to help. I think the fighting would be over fast. Remember the initial invasion in the 2003 Iraq War? It was over in three days; the following civil war and occupation was what lasted so long. That’s what wars look like when the US is off its leash, especially when it’s been training for this scenario for decades. Meanwhile, Iran and Syria are thousands of miles away and while Russia technically shares a border, that far from Russia’s economic and military centers. None of them would be well placed.
First, Russia is already in a proxy war with the US and winning. The type and location of the DPRK border certainly poses problems. You’re not wrong there. But Russia is unlikely to sit back and watch the US encroach it’s borders in the east (while there’s a chance to prevent it).
The US might have been training for it but not in the way that you imply. The DPRK is simply not an existential threat to the US (unless the US provokes a war), and while I don’t give much credit to the US military, it’s high command knows that the DPRK will be difficult to provoke. Just look how patient it has been with part of the peninsula being occupied. It’s not like the Soviets preparing for a fight for survival against the Nazis – it’s almost the exact opposite, in fact, which is another reason why the DPRK will be prepared while the US won’t.
If anything, though, the immediate threat to the US is in South Korea. That’s the part where the US is at risk of being kicked out. If that happens, US power in SEA is over within two decades later. The US already had to intervene once in SK, following the growth of a highly successful protectionist economy, to retain control. It’s been going pretty shit for South Koreans ever since, and some of them seem to be getting restless.
All the US has to do to avoid being embarrassed is not to step on any more DPRK soil or provoke another proxy war. The US military is somewhat masochistic, though, so it probably will ignore such sage advice.
Considering it’s track history for starting and losing direct and proxy wars, there’s no chance that Russia, China, DPRK, Syria, and Iran haven’t also been training for years for when the US makes the error of fighting with a state that has the capacity to fight back, with different contingencies depending on who gets hit first. Additionally, the US likes to pretend that it’s some kind of moral world police, so it’s unlikely to be launching any surprise attacks, giving it’s adversaries time up prepare.
Second, the US is a parasite state that is heavily reliant on imports. It has repeatedly started wars to secure access to foreign oil. All the countries the US has oppressed for decades are (i) waiting for an opportunity to breakaway, and (ii) already starting to breakaway as the US loses its dollar hegemony due to the first point, above. Russia, Syria, and Iran are just the at the top of the list to help the DPRK.
They can do so by disrupting US oil thefts from the Middle East. Once this happens and Saudi Arabia sees which way the wind is blowing not only is the US fucked (it’s production cycles are unsustainable without constant imports), the US’s allies are also fucked because they’ll lose access to the same resources.
This will see the rest of the Anglo-European empire making new alliances and taking the chance to form a new bloc with the US as the lesser party. Similar to the split in the Roman empire. And that’ll be the end of imperialism because the rest of the world won’t be sat still waiting for the new oppressors to turn up.
Third, the US tried this once and lost. This time the DPRK and it’s allies are much more resilient and they now have nukes that can reach the US. The idea that the DPRK doesn’t have a strong, prepared military seems wildly off the mark.
More likely would be the US prodding SK to attack the North but the most realistic outcome there is a unified Korea, with the US being kicked out. But any war in Korea risks this outcome. The US knows this and knows that it has to balance whether it wants a land base so close to China (by far the bigger threat) or whether it wants to be the reason why a peaceful state that up to now has been content to be left alone, becomes aggressive.
It wouldn’t be the first time the US opted for the latter, I know. And the suggestion of putting nukes in SK seems to be evidence that the US continues to be ruled by war mongers.
The constant grandstanding against the DPRK is just entertainment for USians. Nukes in SK is not mainly for the DPRK, but preparation for escalation with or to further threaten China. Xi knows it. But Biden can hardly shout this in public.
First, Russia is already in a proxy war with the US and winning.
Russia is engaging with its own troops. NATO is only working on supplies and support. Given that Russia has already had its newest tanks defeated and is relying on museum pieces, I wouldn’t exactly call it a great success.
high command knows that the DPRK will be difficult to provoke
There is no scenario where the US pursues a fight with North Korea. The US gets nothing out of it and it stirs a pot that could get really nasty. For that matter, the US doesn’t particularly want Kim Jung-un dead because of the power struggle that would cause. Given the already fragile state of North Korea, that would lead to a massive refugee crisis.
The most likely scenario is instead that a series of small escalations lead to all-out war.
Have you not seen the reports of all the foreign (NATO) soldiers fighting in and for Ukraine? Nor those about NATO being unable to send enough ammunition?
There is no scenario where the US pursues a fight with North Korea.
It was you who hypothesised that the US could beat the DPRK in a conventional war. You then had several replies explaining why that was unlikely. It’s a little disingenuous to now suggest that it was you, all along, who thinks the US would not want a war with the DPRK.
It also ignores the fact that the DPRK is already in a conflict with the US. The US started a war decades ago, lost, and never left the peninsula.
For starters, the size of the military, Korea has a total of 7,769,000 personnel in the army, while the US has 2,072,950. US naval force is not that relevant here since the most vulnerable attack for that would be in the South, which is where it’s most connected to the sea, and the air force has been proven to not be that effective against guerrilla warfare, you need to use an insane amount of ammunition like they did in Laos.
China will probably not participate, but it won’t allow US navy ships next to its shores, and if you think Russia, Iran, Syria and some other countries will not help NK you are delirious. Simply by the number of soldiers NK can win a war of attrition.
For starters, how useful is that army? The US has a smaller force, but far better equipment. North Korea’s equipment is decades out of date. The army also takes time to call up. Ultimately, it would be a slaughter.
I don’t think Russia, Iran, and Syria would be in any position to help. I think the fighting would be over fast. Remember the initial invasion in the 2003 Iraq War? It was over in three days; the following civil war and occupation was what lasted so long. That’s what wars look like when the US is off its leash, especially when it’s been training for this scenario for decades. Meanwhile, Iran and Syria are thousands of miles away and while Russia technically shares a border, that far from Russia’s economic and military centers. None of them would be well placed.
You might be forgetting three things.
First, Russia is already in a proxy war with the US and winning. The type and location of the DPRK border certainly poses problems. You’re not wrong there. But Russia is unlikely to sit back and watch the US encroach it’s borders in the east (while there’s a chance to prevent it).
The US might have been training for it but not in the way that you imply. The DPRK is simply not an existential threat to the US (unless the US provokes a war), and while I don’t give much credit to the US military, it’s high command knows that the DPRK will be difficult to provoke. Just look how patient it has been with part of the peninsula being occupied. It’s not like the Soviets preparing for a fight for survival against the Nazis – it’s almost the exact opposite, in fact, which is another reason why the DPRK will be prepared while the US won’t.
If anything, though, the immediate threat to the US is in South Korea. That’s the part where the US is at risk of being kicked out. If that happens, US power in SEA is over within two decades later. The US already had to intervene once in SK, following the growth of a highly successful protectionist economy, to retain control. It’s been going pretty shit for South Koreans ever since, and some of them seem to be getting restless.
All the US has to do to avoid being embarrassed is not to step on any more DPRK soil or provoke another proxy war. The US military is somewhat masochistic, though, so it probably will ignore such sage advice.
Considering it’s track history for starting and losing direct and proxy wars, there’s no chance that Russia, China, DPRK, Syria, and Iran haven’t also been training for years for when the US makes the error of fighting with a state that has the capacity to fight back, with different contingencies depending on who gets hit first. Additionally, the US likes to pretend that it’s some kind of moral world police, so it’s unlikely to be launching any surprise attacks, giving it’s adversaries time up prepare.
Second, the US is a parasite state that is heavily reliant on imports. It has repeatedly started wars to secure access to foreign oil. All the countries the US has oppressed for decades are (i) waiting for an opportunity to breakaway, and (ii) already starting to breakaway as the US loses its dollar hegemony due to the first point, above. Russia, Syria, and Iran are just the at the top of the list to help the DPRK.
They can do so by disrupting US oil thefts from the Middle East. Once this happens and Saudi Arabia sees which way the wind is blowing not only is the US fucked (it’s production cycles are unsustainable without constant imports), the US’s allies are also fucked because they’ll lose access to the same resources.
This will see the rest of the Anglo-European empire making new alliances and taking the chance to form a new bloc with the US as the lesser party. Similar to the split in the Roman empire. And that’ll be the end of imperialism because the rest of the world won’t be sat still waiting for the new oppressors to turn up.
Third, the US tried this once and lost. This time the DPRK and it’s allies are much more resilient and they now have nukes that can reach the US. The idea that the DPRK doesn’t have a strong, prepared military seems wildly off the mark.
More likely would be the US prodding SK to attack the North but the most realistic outcome there is a unified Korea, with the US being kicked out. But any war in Korea risks this outcome. The US knows this and knows that it has to balance whether it wants a land base so close to China (by far the bigger threat) or whether it wants to be the reason why a peaceful state that up to now has been content to be left alone, becomes aggressive.
It wouldn’t be the first time the US opted for the latter, I know. And the suggestion of putting nukes in SK seems to be evidence that the US continues to be ruled by war mongers.
The constant grandstanding against the DPRK is just entertainment for USians. Nukes in SK is not mainly for the DPRK, but preparation for escalation with or to further threaten China. Xi knows it. But Biden can hardly shout this in public.
Russia is engaging with its own troops. NATO is only working on supplies and support. Given that Russia has already had its newest tanks defeated and is relying on museum pieces, I wouldn’t exactly call it a great success.
There is no scenario where the US pursues a fight with North Korea. The US gets nothing out of it and it stirs a pot that could get really nasty. For that matter, the US doesn’t particularly want Kim Jung-un dead because of the power struggle that would cause. Given the already fragile state of North Korea, that would lead to a massive refugee crisis.
The most likely scenario is instead that a series of small escalations lead to all-out war.
Have you not seen the reports of all the foreign (NATO) soldiers fighting in and for Ukraine? Nor those about NATO being unable to send enough ammunition?
It was you who hypothesised that the US could beat the DPRK in a conventional war. You then had several replies explaining why that was unlikely. It’s a little disingenuous to now suggest that it was you, all along, who thinks the US would not want a war with the DPRK.
It also ignores the fact that the DPRK is already in a conflict with the US. The US started a war decades ago, lost, and never left the peninsula.