Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Will North Korea Be Another Iraq/Vietnam? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    In the event of a United States-led invasion of DPRK, will it become another terrible mission such as the recent Iraq debacle or even Vietnam?

    What do you think?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    The USA lost to Vietnam for crying out loud. If it was just the USA, then the USA would lose. But, if the USA had their allies fight with them, they'd win for sure.

    However, I think North Korea would attempt to nuke the USA first and then USA would nuke them.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by `Jts)
    The USA lost to Vietnam for crying out loud. If it was just the USA, then the USA would lose. But, if the USA had their allies fight with them, they'd win for sure.

    However, I think North Korea would attempt to nuke the USA first and then USA would nuke them.
    People don't seem to get it...the USA lost to [North] Vietnam because the former Soviet Union and Maoist China bolstered North Vietnam's manpower by a huge margin. The Vietnam war was basically the Eastern Bloc (Soviet, China) vs Western Bloc (US+European Allies).

    With North Korea, I highly doubt Russia and China are going to offer their support - huge costs with no benefits for either nation. The country's a lost cause and even China's getting really fed up with North Korea's constant threats

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by `Jts)
    The USA lost to Vietnam for crying out loud. If it was just the USA, then the USA would lose. But, if the USA had their allies fight with them, they'd win for sure.

    However, I think North Korea would attempt to nuke the USA first and then USA would nuke them.
    But whilst the United States did walk all over the Iraqi forces, it cannot be said that the Iraqi mission was a "success", especially in light of the seemingly non-existent WMDs.

    Regarding your latter, whilst it has been widely speculated that we do not know much about NK's nuclear weapon capabilities (e.g. it could have been underestimated), it would be highly stupid of NK to attack the United States. The backlash would be atrocious. But having said that, are people entirely sure that the United States would fire a nuke at NK (even if NK fired a nuke at them - which would probably be shot down)? A nuke on NK would harm the surrounding area, including the US ally of South Korea - would the United States be willing to do that?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    North Korea will just get flattened by... everyone.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HumanSupremacist)
    In the event of a United States-led invasion of DPRK, will it become another terrible mission such as the recent Iraq debacle or even Vietnam?

    What do you think?
    I think the Chinese may resist because a US invasion, from the CPC's point of view, would be a strategic nightmare for them:

    - US troops approaching their borders

    - Korean refugees entering China, causing a drain on resources that are scarce enough

    - Possibility of growing nationalist sentiment (highly debatable IMO) among ethnic Koreans in the border provinces in China

    However I think that if the Kim regime is toppled, the Chinese government may just take over the North in order to implement its own buffer against US troops and/or enforce flood control on immigrants

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Most sources I've seen show any North Korean "nuclear threat" as not having the range to reach anywhere near the US mainland.
    On the news the other day there was some professor who wrote a book on North Korea, and if I remember correctly he thinks it could just be a show of force with the goal of the DPRK basically getting paid to stand down. With such an isolated and seemingly weak economy money could well be a driving factor... Who knows.
    But I agree with above post, I'd be extremely surprised if China pushes NK for confrontation. As China is the main ally of NK it seems that if any country has the power to 'reign them in', it would be them.
    At least that's how I see things

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think anything will happen unless the N.Korean leader is an Idiot. North Korea is standing alone against USA, its colonies and allies. Sure China is a cultural/historical ally of North Korea but they don't seem to be happy about the trouble at their doorsteps. I think it's just a threat. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be taken serious- not at all. Every threat should be taken seriously.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by `Jts)
    If it was just the USA, then the USA would lose. But, if the USA had their allies fight with them, they'd win for sure.
    Interesting, why do you think the USA would lose against North Korea? Because of support from China? Just curious

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NotMyToothbrush)
    North Korea will just get flattened by... everyone.
    You underestimate North Korea. Sure, if the US nukes them to oblivion, they will stand no chance - but will the US nuke them, especially with the close proximity of South Korea, its ally, which will undoubtedly be affected by the aftermath of nukes dropping on NK.

    (Original post by ss_s95)
    I think the Chinese may resist because a US invasion, from the CPC's point of view, would be a strategic nightmare for them:

    - US troops approaching their borders

    - Korean refugees entering China, causing a drain on resources that are scarce enough

    - Possibility of growing nationalist sentiment (highly debatable IMO) among ethnic Koreans in the border provinces in China

    However I think that if the Kim regime is toppled, the Chinese government may just take over the North in order to implement its own buffer against US troops and/or enforce flood control on immigrants

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    This is the thing. It is unclear what China's actual position is, regardless of its defense pact or UN responsibilities. I say this, because, if you've seen the news lately, China has since been massing troops etc on the North Korean border. Now, why is this? Is this to stop any potential refugees? Is it preparing for any potential enforcement of its defense pact with NK (i.e. repelling attackers of NK) or is it a preparation for an actual invasion of North Korea itself?

    I highly doubt that China will enter into a direct conflict with the United States, but with the massing of Chinese troops near North Korea, it is a possibility, albeit a remote one.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HumanSupremacist)
    In the event of a United States-led invasion of DPRK, will it become another terrible mission such as the recent Iraq debacle or even Vietnam?

    What do you think?
    I think it would be far, far worse, because unlike Iraq and North Vietnam the North Korean state appears to have no sense of self-preservation. Kim Jong-un would have no hesitation in nuking an invading army on North Korean soil, even if it meant killing thousands of his own people at the same time. Even Hitler and Stalin, let alone Saddam, were never prepared to go so far against their own loyal supporters.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Nobody is going to invade North Korea, so no, it won't.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HumanSupremacist)
    You underestimate North Korea. Sure, if the US nukes them to oblivion, they will stand no chance - but will the US nuke them, especially with the close proximity of South Korea, its ally, which will undoubtedly be affected by the aftermath of nukes dropping on NK.



    This is the thing. It is unclear what China's actual position is, regardless of its defense pact or UN responsibilities. I say this, because, if you've seen the news lately, China has since been massing troops etc on the North Korean border. Now, why is this? Is this to stop any potential refugees? Is it preparing for any potential enforcement of its defense pact with NK (i.e. repelling attackers of NK) or is it a preparation for an actual invasion of North Korea itself?

    I highly doubt that China will enter into a direct conflict with the United States, but with the massing of Chinese troops near North Korea, it is a possibility, albeit a remote one.
    I highly doubt they'll have a conflict with the US - the two countries' economies are highly interdependent on each other.

    I'm just speculating here but the Chinese troops could just be approaching the border as a "warning" to North Korea for them to stop raising tensions. Rightly so because China wants stability on the peninsula, mainly to maintain its buffer against the US and SK.

    IF the North ignores and a conflict breaks out, I think the Chinese might just invade North Korea - that way they have greater control over the area.

    I doubt they'll be supporting North Korea - economically and politically it WILL incur a huge loss for China IMO

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ss_s95)
    People don't seem to get it...the USA lost to [North] Vietnam because the former Soviet Union and Maoist China bolstered North Vietnam's manpower by a huge margin. The Vietnam war was basically the Eastern Bloc (Soviet, China) vs Western Bloc (US+European Allies).

    With North Korea, I highly doubt Russia and China are going to offer their support - huge costs with no benefits for either nation. The country's a lost cause and even China's getting really fed up with North Korea's constant threats

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    This narrative is wholesale revisionism, they lost because formal entrance into the Vietnam War rest on the predicate that the proxy dictators instituted in the south to repel communism suffered such overwhelming opposition that intervention was a necessary precondition to its survival; the primary locus of the war was South Vietnam. Soviet and Chinese support was hardly sufficiently sizable to be decisive. The low-warfare plaguing the modern era - known, of course, not for its reliance on heavy arms - was birthed by, and predominated, the Vietcong strategem.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rooster523)
    Nobody is going to invade North Korea, so no, it won't.
    Are you sure about that?

    In any case, North Korea actually needs to be invaded by someone - either China or a United States-led coalition. It is now or never - because if the US leaves this to fester, NK might just carry out its threats and wreak havoc somewhere. Iraq was invaded for much much less - right now, the US has a hostile force threatening to destroy it, and it just sits twiddling its fingers (OK, maybe not twiddling fingers, as it is spying and deploying troops and ships and planes and subs etc to the area).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arbolus)
    I think it would be far, far worse, because unlike Iraq and North Vietnam the North Korean state appears to have no sense of self-preservation. Kim Jong-un would have no hesitation in nuking an invading army on North Korean soil, even if it meant killing thousands of his own people at the same time. Even Hitler and Stalin, let alone Saddam, were never prepared to go so far against their own loyal supporters.
    It's a recurring theme with the Kim ruling family - people say the leaders are worse than Hitler. I agree because while Hitler attacked his enemies, the Kims have been torturing, starving, and oppressing their own people. Of course Fatty the 3rd wouldn't mind if his own people were killed in the process.

    Next day the propaganda machine would simply declare those victims "Martyrs of the Fatherland" - I guarantee you.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    it'll probably be about 10 times worse than both of them put together
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HumanSupremacist)
    Are you sure about that?

    In any case, North Korea actually needs to be invaded by someone - either China or a United States-led coalition. It is now or never - because if the US leaves this to fester, NK might just carry out its threats and wreak havoc somewhere. Iraq was invaded for much much less - right now, the US has a hostile force threatening to destroy it, and it just sits twiddling its fingers (OK, maybe not twiddling fingers, as it is spying and deploying troops and ships and planes and subs etc to the area).
    Your lack of international politics knowledge is rather amusing. China is NK's ally, why would it invade?

    And to what end would the US invade? To shut them up? North Korea are doing this all purely for propaganda for their own people. If they really were going to launch a nuclear strike, do you think they'd be a massive build up to it? A massive countdown with zero element of surprise?

    Like you said- Iraq was invaded for less, but unlike NK, Iraq posed a plausible threat.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Vis-a-vis the North Korean question, it is overwhelmingly unlikely that conflict will occur, insofar as I can recognise the present rhetorical exchange is merely a mis-managed affirmation of mutual deterrence. Only three things might induce an inter-state war insofar as I can concieve: (1) nuclear accident (of which is by far the most likely given the complexity and minimal time for response entailed by nuclear technology, and the militarism and crude technology of North Korea, i.e. doesn't adhere to international safeguards); (2) the sudden escalation of deterrence theories by some misperception of the others action; (3) there being a cultural distortion within North Korea sufficient to compel them to suicide (very unlikely).

    Obviously the most likely scenario of the current stand-off is one of a minimal exchange of hostilities or wholesale nuclear war (I can't really envisage a scenario of medium or full-scale conventional war); rendering a repeated 'Iraq' impossible. Of course, Iraq and North Korea are so radically different as to make any comparison almost empty, i.e. the kind of religious and ethnic sectarianism, post-colonial history, regional geopolitics, religious extremism of Iraq is very far away from North Korea.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ss_s95)
    People don't seem to get it...the USA lost to [North] Vietnam because the former Soviet Union and Maoist China bolstered North Vietnam's manpower by a huge margin. The Vietnam war was basically the Eastern Bloc (Soviet, China) vs Western Bloc (US+European Allies)
    The U.S. didn't lose to North Vietnam, let alone to the Soviet Union and Maoist China, the latter of which had actually been co-opted by Nixon in 1972 because of increased tensions between the two communist powers. Up until the U.S. withdrawal in 1973, there were more South Korean troops partaking in ground operations during the Vietnam War - on the side of the Americans - than North Vietnamese. It was only after the U.S. withdrawal that the North Vietnamese army launched a full-fledged invasion of the South. The U.S. was in fact defeated by an indigenous South Vietnamese guerrilla movement, the NLF - with some logistical and military backing from the North - which received overwhelming support from the majority of the South Vietnamese population; largely due to America's brutal conduct against Vietnamese civilians stretching back to the end of WWII. North Vietnam was but a sideshow of the Vietnam War. The USSR and China weren't even that.

    Edit. Indeed, the U.S.' false belief that the North was the driving force behind the insurgency is one of the reasons for the American defeat. They invested billions of dollars and more bombs than were dropped on Japan during WWII on the aerial bombing of North Vietnam, and in spite of that bombing the insurgency still didn't cease but in fact got stronger. It diverted their attention from the real problem which was that a superpower was wiping out a whole rural civilization in the South with its incessant attacks on villages and the deaths and displacement of millions of civilians.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 15, 2013
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.