US will only resort to air campaign and precision strike. It will not risk troop campaign because NK is nuke armed.
I don't see how sending the troop in will help fighting other than occuping NK
China's strategy in Korean peninsula
- Thread starter Phead128
- Start date
I don't see how sending the troop in will help fighting other than occuping NK
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
Well, if that's the case, the US wants to do a hit n' run on the nuclear facilities, then China may not have to respond at all. As a matter of fact, Kim has been quite disrespectful of Xi's authority and Xi might just say, "I told you so."
But if the US wants to take out the Kim regime and unify the peninsula under South Korea and US military command, then it will have to take control of North Korea with troops. That's the situation that China must prevent by taking it with Chinese troops first.
So, if the air campaign against military targets not so important, then what will the US do if the DPRK nuke the US pacific ocean military bases as a reaction for the US air campaign?
Don't forget, from Kim standpoint a limited air campaign, that target/ kill him is equvalent to a full blown , land/air/sea attack by US/ROK/Japan.
My dad's uncle got massively rich running guns across Hong Kong-China border during the cultural revolution period when China was isolated.
It's trivially easy to get rich overnight with a couple runs of illegal shipping oil to NK state.
You just have to bear the consequences if you were ever caught by the police, but is lucrative because the mark up price can be as high as 800% the market rate depending on timing.
It's trivially easy to get rich overnight with a couple runs of illegal shipping oil to NK state.
You just have to bear the consequences if you were ever caught by the police, but is lucrative because the mark up price can be as high as 800% the market rate depending on timing.
antiterror13
Brigadier
even if NK didn't have a nuke ... the US would never use land force against NK directly, too risky and the casualties would be unimaginable
Problem is in the war you don't do what you would like to to ,but you do what you need to do.
No one wants to use nuclear weapons, but they will if there is no other options.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Fatty K would have been far more concerned about a possible US decapitation strike against his lardy behind. And to be frank, if the US had a position lock on him, there wouldn’t have been much he or his military could have done to stop it short of him living his every moment deep in some mountain bunker. But even then there would still be a chance that the US could still get him.
Nukes and ICBMs are his insurance policy that that never happens.
He would have been living in near constant fear that a JADAM or other similar US PGM was going to burst through his roof at any moment. That’s huge motivation for him to get an insurance policy to make sure that never happens and he no longer need to scurry and hide like a rat in his own country.
Fear is a double edged sword.
there is wisdom in your words.
Everyone try to analyse the payout matrix from the country standpoint, however what matter is how the decision maker(s) see the situation, options , gain and loss.
