**The "North Korea Watch 2013" Update Thread**

It should probably be pointed out that thats coming from the people who were convinced that Iraq had wmd's.

It seems to me that NK is basically wasting everyone's time. Making a total mockery of western intelligence agencies and checking the most powerful military ever by moving trucks in and out of garages and lifting missiles up and down.

The US is now probably realising they can keep this up indefinitely and it'll be no more military anything in the rest of world by the US while they do.

It should probably be pointed out that thats coming from the people who were convinced that Iraq had wmd's.

It seems to me that NK is basically wasting everyone's time. Making a total mockery of western intelligence agencies and checking the most powerful military ever by moving trucks in and out of garages and lifting missiles up and down.

The US is now probably realising they can keep this up indefinitely and it'll be no more military anything in the rest of world by the US while they do.

You realize the size of the US military and intel apparatus right? They quite comfortably ran two wars simultaneously. Not to mention that during the Cold War they managed to have an eye on the USSR at all times as well as fighting a number of proxy wars against them. NK may be wasting people's time but its hardly taking up all US resources. IF anything it gives them more of an excuse to send more military assets to the region to counter any future Chinese actions.

May not be taking up all their resources but it'll take up a lot of them and weaken them on all other fronts. Could be their plan. Imagine SK's reaction if Iran kicked off and the Americans sailed off to defend Israel instead. Result would be SK looking at options outside its US alliance. India's the best bet. Sure they lack infrastructure but that could soon be fixed.

US current defensive doctrine is to be able to fight a holding action and a full scale war somewhere else at the same time. This is a downscale from the previous of being able to fight two full scale wars at the same time. The US military is equipped and has the nous to be able to deal with both at once.

India would be a laughable partner. Firstly they do not have the military infrastructure nor the will or want to take up the sort of burden that South Korea would entail. India has the potential to be a great military power but they do not have the will and so are years from it

The US military barely has the nous to deal with a bunch of beardy blokes on clapped out mopeds with AK47's. A downsize from them not having the nous to deal with Vietnamese in the jungle. The US invasion of Iraq was a shambles. They were fed false intelligence to get them to waste their time.

India proved it's self against the fiercest of opponents in the second world war. These days tho they lack the technology and so lag behind even Pakistan. SK could soon bring them up to speed. An ideal match.

What is it with people and using Afghanistan and Vietnam as examples of why the US military is weak? You can't judge a military power by it's showing in a Gurilla campaign, asymmetric warfare has defeated some of the greatest powers in military history. Look at how the US military decimated Iraq's army in 2003 and 1990, look at how the US airforce completely degraded Gaddafi's air defense network. Look at the fact that the US has a global reach and can fight wars across the globe, a capacity limited to very few nations. The aftermath of Iraq was a joke eys but the campaign against Saddam's military was not.

But you are still missing that India does not have the will to get involved in foreign entanglements. They have a very small global footprint and India still sees itself as a non aligned neutral nation.

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21574458-india-poised-become-one-four-largest-military-powers-world-end have a look at this. India lacks the will to be a great power

What is it with people and using Afghanistan and Vietnam as examples of why the US military is weak? You can't judge a military power by it's showing in a Gurilla campaign, asymmetric warfare has defeated some of the greatest powers in military history. Look at how the US military decimated Iraq's army in 2003 and 1990, look at how the US airforce completely degraded Gaddafi's air defense network. Look at the fact that the US has a global reach and can fight wars across the globe, a capacity limited to very few nations. The aftermath of Iraq was a joke eys but the campaign against Saddam's military was not.

But you are still missing that India does not have the will to get involved in foreign entanglements. They have a very small global footprint and India still sees itself as a non aligned neutral nation.

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21574458-india-poised-become-one-four-largest-military-powers-world-end have a look at this. India lacks the will to be a great power

The US is a very mighty military force indeed, but that doesn't mean they are not vulnerable. Any nuclear armed nation could inflict serious damage to the US before that said country is wiped off the map.

Are you serious Aj?


That's like saying "Look at how that massive and skilled pro wrestler KO'd that thin, wiry and puny little guy."

I'm not saying it could't but I think people are far too critical of the US armed forces in conventional wars due to Afghanistan and Vietnam

Regardless of the opponent involved the US showed it can fight a fully integrated air land and sea campaign, hardly an easy thing to do. Iraq is a good example of the capabilities the US has and that it can use them well. As well as this just being able to fight a war and keep an army supplied as far away from its home as the US did shows an incredibly advanced logistical ability that most countries can only dream of.

Are you serious Aj?


That's like saying "Look at how that massive and skilled pro wrestler KO'd that thin, wiry and puny little guy."

But if people are going to continue to use the example of how America's military was embarrassed in Iraq, they should at least get their facts straight and know that the US military was extremely successful in overthrowing the Saddam regime but as Aj said the aftermath was a complete mess. Even so, the speed and efficiency the US military took down the regime.

Getting back to the topic, there's probably countless pages on this already but I highly doubt North Korea will start a war with the US. I mean, a nation reliant upon foreign aid and who can barely afford to feed its citizens starting a war with the greatest military in the world without any allies to back it up is highly unlikely. It's all just sabre rattling to try and get nations to see them as a serious player but I could be wrong, only time will tell.

I'm not saying it could't but I think people are far too critical of the US armed forces in conventional wars due to Afghanistan and Vietnam

That's not exactly a grand achievement - it's like a highly skilled Goliath being the USA and puny and a David being Iraq, this time, David losing because he's unskilled and whatnot. I would have been more surprised had the USA not been able to overthrow the Saddam regime. It's not exactly surprising or a particularly great achievement when the greatest military on the planet wins a petty war now, is it?

This is why it's pitiful that some bearded tribesmen with Ak47s still cause a great deal of trouble for the greatest military on Earth (which has now resorted to the use of drones). But then again, Afghanistan is called "The Graveyard of Empires", so the United States stood no chance in the first place

It's not being critical, it's being ignorant; a far worse error. People simply don't understand the difference between the two concepts. Hence why we get people spouting nonsensical lines such as in the post following yours "Whats next? Americans build new super sub capable of engaging all China and Russias forces at once, Korean scuba diver knocks on door".
So many holes it's not even worth starting to pick it apart.

It makes a point which is that no matter how big your army is you can be outsmarted. A cowboy shootout perhaps has less room for this but in conflicts with complex obstacles such as jungle that require adaptation, cunning and flexible innovative thinking the Americans don't fare so well. Any war where the enemy has less but uses what they have and the terrain better is "asymmetric" and doesn't count where as blokes standing in the desert where the Americans can see them is the sort of proper war by which we should judge the American forces?

There are some key differences in this situation.
1 - the US has fought in Korea before.
2 - the US has been based in Korea for 60 years and knows the terrain just as well as the locals; terrain which isn't all that extreme [no desert, no rainforests].
3 - the open sea is not an unusual place of battle for a country who - for nearly 100years - has succesfully operated a blue water Navy in combat operations globally.


Your specific example of the submarine being scuppered "by a scuba diver" is childish. And that's being charitable.


The US' issues have mostly come from fighting non-conventional wars. Not fighting against Armies with massive manpower reserves and huge logistical tails. When they do come up against such Armies, they annihilate them. When they do come up against such Air Forces, they destroy them. The old Roman idea of decimation is small potatoes, the Americans go for total destruction. And achieve it.
They fall down when the fighting devolves to guerilla style very small scale engagements, something NK's doctrines and set up are not geared towards.