Author Topic: A world without the US (Read 7330 times)

stiehl · « **Reply #105 on:** February 15, 2004, 07:15:18 PM »

Every SK male serves in the military. Plus most of those million are half starved and barely trained, using obsolete weapon systems

NUKE · « **Reply #106 on:** February 15, 2004, 07:54:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Ah ... I see. 1.000.000 NK troops vs. 560.000 SK troops. So I guess the 37.000 US troops will save SK. Ok ... that makes sense.

It's not the 37,000 that are there, it's the one's that will follow should anything happen to them that keeps NK at bay, not the fear of the UN.

Kieran · « **Reply #107 on:** February 15, 2004, 08:03:24 PM »

Gotta ask, Gscholz, why it is YOU think the US is in SK? Why is it when the US talks of pulling out, the people there ask us to stay? I'm curious how you'll rationalize that one.

NUKE · « **Reply #108 on:** February 15, 2004, 08:09:34 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kieran
Gotta ask, Gscholz, why it is YOU think the US is in SK? Why is it when the US talks of pulling out, the people there ask us to stay? I'm curious how you'll rationalize that one.

Better yet, why isn't the UN there insead, since it was a "UN" action?

Toad · « **Reply #109 on:** February 15, 2004, 08:22:55 PM »

The UN IS there. The US presently LEADS the UN Command - Republic of Korea.

Of course, we're about the only ones with any significant number of troops there, but it's still a "blue flag" operation technically.

Toad · « **Reply #110 on:** February 15, 2004, 08:25:28 PM »

C'mon Scholz; you're better than that.

The NK's would have to roll over 30,000 US troops to get at Seoul.

Everybody knows what would happen then and it wouldn't be pretty.

You REALLY think we'd just let them die and then walk away?

Nope. SK might end up being an island instead of on a peninsula though.

NUKE · « **Reply #111 on:** February 15, 2004, 08:51:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
The UN IS there. The US presently LEADS the UN Command - Republic of Korea.

Of course, we're about the only ones with any significant number of troops there, but it's still a "blue flag" operation technically.

A UN operation in name only and everyone but Gscholz knows that.

Staga · « **Reply #112 on:** February 15, 2004, 09:53:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Yep, it was a UN action. Made possible because the Soviet Union boycotted the Security Council and thus wasn't there to veto the involvment. Which they absolutely, most surely, without doubt would have done. In short, had the Soviets not boycotted, the UN wouldn't have been involved at all. It would be yet another case of UN failure to act.

Heh I got big grin on my face everytime some american whines against Vetoes made in SC; After all it's mostly you who has used them

wklink · « **Reply #113 on:** February 15, 2004, 11:03:07 PM »

You guys are underestimating the abilities of the ROK Army, as I said. This isn't the same army of 1950, not only are these guys properly equiped but they have a real motive to defend South Korea.

Yes, the North Korean Army is large. A 1.8 to one advantage is very helpful but unless SK intelligence (and US for that matter) are profoundly stupid the gear up for conflict should be pretty easy to see. Every bridge in the North is targeted, you can be sure of that. Slowing down the NK army even a little bit will probably cause them to peter out about halfway down the peninsula. Worst is probaby a Pusan like perimeter. If the US becomes heavily involved (which they will, nothing like killing 20 thousand US troops in an unprovoked attack) then look to see another reversal like in 51. However this time don't expect China to come to the aid of the North.

The North knows this. The best time for NK to attack was in the mid 70's, when US morale was relatively low, the US was still in shock from the ending of Vietnam, and the ties between NK and the Soviet Union and China were still relatively strong. Now they don't have the food stocks to maintain an army in the field, nor I bet spare parts or replacement equipment. They are strong, but not as much so as an offensive force. Offensives, especially against well dug in enemies like the South (remember, these guys have had 50 years to get ready for them-I have seen the prep work) use up a lot of men and materiel.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #114 on:** February 15, 2004, 11:13:28 PM »

The question isn't, "How many troops will NK commit to fighting?"

It's, "Will China fight for NK again?"

Pei · « **Reply #115 on:** February 15, 2004, 11:31:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
The question isn't, "How many troops will NK commit to fighting?"

It's, "Will China fight for NK again?"

Probably depends if the US General in charge keeps going off about taking the War to China and kicking the commies out of Peking.

-tronski- · « **Reply #116 on:** February 16, 2004, 01:09:28 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pei
Probably depends if the US General in charge keeps going off about taking the War to China and kicking the commies out of Peking.

...and the liberal use of atomic bombs to accomplish that aim...

Tronsky

wklink · « **Reply #117 on:** February 16, 2004, 06:31:59 AM »

I personally doubt that China would become involved. NK has become something of an embarrasment to the government in Beijing. The philosophies of the current rulers and the ones in Pyongyang are very different than the ones in 1950.

Add to this the change in economies for China. Currently China's biggest trade partner is the United States. Going to war with your biggest trading partner over a rogue nation like North Korea probably wouldn't sit too well with many buisiness leaders in China.

I'm not saying it couldn't happen, I just doubt that China would rush in like they did in 1951. The country of North Korea isn't thought of a a kindred spirit anymore. Likewise China doesn't need to get support from Stalin.

Dowding · « **Reply #118 on:** February 16, 2004, 07:38:35 AM »

Are you saying the US wouldn't exist as in an alternate history where it remained part of the British Empire? I think it would have achieved independance eventually, but would have been part of the commonwealth. I think WW1 wouldn't have happened, because no-one in their right minds would have taken on the Empire with that kind of power (assuming the US had expanded under British control like it did in isolation), and if they had it would have been over very quickly. No WW1, would mean no WW2 and possibly no Russian communism. No Russian communism or WW2 means no Chinese communism in all likelihood. No Soviet Bloc, means no Cold War and the countless trillions of dollars and huge wads of resources spent on defence. The world would probably be richer and a little more crowded.

So all in all, 1776 was a bad year for humanity and the course the world would take.

Curval · « **Reply #119 on:** February 16, 2004, 07:41:54 AM »

Toad,

Now why would I think that Sadat might be less than generous with the truth?

Your posts are excellent, educational and reveal my knowledge of what occured to be different and possibly lacking. It has sparked an interest in the topic for me, and I will read up on this battle to educate myself better.

Nevertheless, despite the volume of weapons that were sent by the US and the timing of the receipt of those weapons Israeli soldiers continued to man them. To my knowledge the US did not have a military presence fighting on any of the fronts in that battle.

While the US contributions were welcome and effective it seems to me that the credit for winning that battle rests squarely on the shoulders of the IDF.

I mean, are you suggesting, for example, that the United States won the Battle of Britain? In that battle there were some US flyers who flew for the Brits (I saw Pear Harbour

) but I cannot imagine that British efforts could be cheapened by US claims that they were responsible for the British victory despite the huge amount of aid sent by the US.

I suppose the French "won" the US War of Indepence if this is indeed the case.