The War Sweepstake Thread

[Maynardgravy]

1 hour ago, GloomMonger said:

How do aircraft carriers defend themselves? I would have thought even the NKoreans would have the ability to launch missiles and torpedoes at them.

 

[RichB]

5 hours ago, GloomMonger said:

How do aircraft carriers defend themselves? I would have thought even the NKoreans would have the ability to launch missiles and torpedoes at them.

Carriers don't usually go alone at night.  They have all sorts of colleagues with them to screen for all sorts of threats.

 

Still... it might be worth figuring out the main competition for the south Korea  dominated industries and having a small investment.

[200p]

On 14/04/2017 at 11:46 PM, reddog said:

What would a war between north Korea and the US look like?

 

Also if it went nuclear, would we be affected in Europe?  

Its worth reading into the Vietnam war that lasted 20 years. There maybe some parallels to that. The communist government consolidated power in the end by capturing Saigon with the US withdrawing. Without a military opponent,  government opened themselves up to trade, and became the moderate socialists which are still in power today.

[interestrateripoff]

5 hours ago, RichB said:

Carriers don't usually go alone at night.  They have all sorts of colleagues with them to screen for all sorts of threats.

 

Still... it might be worth figuring out the main competition for the south Korea  dominated industries and having a small investment.

Trumps plan to bring US jobs home start a massive war involving China Japan and both South North Korea?

How much would that disrupt global supply chains to the advantage of the US?

[interestrateripoff]

Carrier Wasn’t Sailing to Deter North Korea, as U.S. Threatened

By MARK LANDLER and ERIC SCHMITT 20 minutes ago

 

• The White House declared that ordering an American aircraft carrier into the Sea of Japan would send a powerful deterrent signal to North Korea.
• Except that the carrier, and four other warships, were sailing in the opposite direction.

[interestrateripoff]

Pentagon Considers Shooting Down North Korea Missile Tests

Just when a few hours had passed without any escalation around the Korean Peninsula, The Guardian reports that the US military is considering shooting down North Korean missile tests as a show of strength to Pyongyang according to two sources briefed on the plans.

[billybong]

The issue of North Korea has been on the back burner since the Korean war and it's possible that now they're going to put it right on the forefront.  Apparently although NK has a standing army of about 1 million it can quickly call on about 10 million of its population.  As it would require troops on the ground to confirm victory it's likely that any invasion force would have to be significantly larger than the US/UK has standing at present.  

Which would seem to suggest possible conscription and so far as the UK is concerned might be one reason to help to explain why so many people (getting on for 10 million) mainly young people from overseas have been allowed into the UK in the last two decades.  I'm not saying it's a good reason but it's a possible reason - considering how secretive and misleading they all have been and are about intentions.

[GloomMonger]

I really can't see forced conscription working anymore. Who in their right mind is going to fight someone elses war in another land? And for whom?

[MT7726]

"where will they decide to go and liberate this time?...."

Simple, anywhere where there isn't a bankster controlled private central bank, ie. Iran, Syria, North Korea......

[MT7726]

Or, anywhere where the countries refuse from using the petro dollar.

[Riedquat]

4 hours ago, GloomMonger said:

I really can't see forced conscription working anymore. Who in their right mind is going to fight someone elses war in another land? And for whom?

Where are they going to get the material to supply a large conscript army from? In any case I think the army has stated a few times that the last thing of any use to them would be large numbers of untrained people who don't want to be there and resent it.

[billybong]

5 hours ago, GloomMonger said:

I really can't see forced conscription working anymore. Who in their right mind is going to fight someone elses war in another land? And for whom?

 

1 hour ago, Riedquat said:

Where are they going to get the material to supply a large conscript army from? In any case I think the army has stated a few times that the last thing of any use to them would be large numbers of untrained people who don't want to be there and resent it.

It's not an ideal solution, far from it, and supply resources would be a clear issue but if there is a serious war requiring large numbers of troops then it's usually needs must.  By definition conscription or compulsory military service is mandatory/forced and they are usually reluctant (although I guess some don't mind) but even so a system of conscripts to be trained up is still used in many countries including some european countries.  Apparently the rules on conscription differ from country to country.  

The UK had National Service/conscription until about 1960.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_Kingdom

Apparently it;s been discussed in Parliament at least as recently as 2013.

[Riedquat]

32 minutes ago, billybong said:

It's not an ideal solution, far from it, and supply resources would be a clear issue but if there is a serious war requiring large numbers of troops then it's usually needs must.

What use would large numbers of troops be for the UK in a war of any scale?

[billybong]

12 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

What use would large numbers of troops be for the UK in a war of any scale?

 

13 hours ago, billybong said:

The issue of North Korea has been on the back burner since the Korean war and it's possible that now they're going to put it right on the forefront.  Apparently although NK has a standing army of about 1 million it can quickly call on about 10 million of its population.  As it would require troops on the ground to confirm victory it's likely that any invasion force would have to be significantly larger than the US/UK has standing at present.  

Which would seem to suggest possible conscription and so far as the UK is concerned might be one reason to help to explain why so many people (getting on for 10 million) mainly young people from overseas have been allowed into the UK in the last two decades.  I'm not saying it's a good reason but it's a possible reason - considering how secretive and misleading they all have been and are about intentions.

That's if they're thinking seriously about war with NK and it's likely they are considering the apparent increasing threat.

[Riedquat]

That doesn't answer the question. They've got lots of people. So did the Roman army but I couldn't see the Romans doing well in a modern war. I don't see North Korea being able to send millions to attack the UK, and if North Korea was attacked they'd have the crap bombed out of them first. You probably need lots of soldiers to hold territory but that's mostly the followup, if it remains hostile with the leadership gone (i.e. one reason Iraq and Afghanistan were doomed to failure, not so sure if the same would be likely in North Korea). If nukes get involved everything else is irrelevent, everyone's screwed anyway.

[billybong]

1 hour ago, Riedquat said:

That doesn't answer the question. They've got lots of people. So did the Roman army but I couldn't see the Romans doing well in a modern war. I don't see North Korea being able to send millions to attack the UK, and if North Korea was attacked they'd have the crap bombed out of them first. You probably need lots of soldiers to hold territory but that's mostly the followup, if it remains hostile with the leadership gone (i.e. one reason Iraq and Afghanistan were doomed to failure, not so sure if the same would be likely in North Korea). If nukes get involved everything else is irrelevent, everyone's screwed anyway.

I think it does answer the question or at least the question you posted.  The Roman example doesn't seem at all comparable in considering a modern war with the Roman's more rudimentary weapons, communications and transport etc etc along with the much smaller armies/populations etc.

Indeed NK won't be able to invade the UK anytime soon if ever but its missile range capabilities are apparently getting greater as time goes on and that's the reported apparent perceived threat to both the US and the UK as well as to nations nearer to NK.  The UK and the US (west) are both roughly equidistant from NK.  Nobody knows exactly how such a war might develop (except maybe the military) but from recent examples such as Irag likely there would indeed be some sort of bombing first (the exact type of bombing depending to some extent on what triggered the war and what responses there were etc etc ) and then follow up on land to fight unpredictable resistance and then to hold territory and to help to repair and rebuild as well as to possibly defend.  The proximity and possible opportunism and concerns of other countries in the area (China mainly although Russia as well) also clearly complicates things.

Of course NK isn't the only country or region where more serious levels of warfare might involve more troops being needed.  Alternatively it's just possible that Trump was serious before the election about withdrawing the US from overseas military involvement and that would likely also be reflected in the UK's involvement overseas. 

[happy_renting]

The logisitcs of feeding 10m mobilised people would surely be beyound the NKs, half of them are supposed to be near-starving as it is.

[stormymonday_2011]

12 hours ago, Riedquat said:

That doesn't answer the question. They've got lots of people. So did the Roman army but I couldn't see the Romans doing well in a modern war. I don't see North Korea being able to send millions to attack the UK, and if North Korea was attacked they'd have the crap bombed out of them first. You probably need lots of soldiers to hold territory but that's mostly the followup, if it remains hostile with the leadership gone (i.e. one reason Iraq and Afghanistan were doomed to failure, not so sure if the same would be likely in North Korea). If nukes get involved everything else is irrelevent, everyone's screwed anyway.

The North Koreans are not going to attack the UK. Nor are going to sit there and wait to be bombed like Saddam did in Gulf War 2. Most of the major population centres of South Korea are less than 30 mile from the DMZ. The NKA tactic if attacked  would be to fight 'close to the belt'  like the Viet Cong and NVA. That would mean sending troops across the border into the South and mixing them with their civilian population. That would mean potentially lots of collateral damage even in a conventional war.  The North has been preparing potential invasion routes for decades including possible extensive tunnelling

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/02/world/asia/north-korea-dmz-tunnels/index.html

In addition NK  is known to have viable chemical and biological agents as well as potential nuclear weapons.

Most of the NK population have been indoctrinated since birth and have no access to things such as the internet or other western media so the idea that they are all going to embrace western consumer capitalism once the current dictator is dead is likely to be even more of a forlorn hope than it was in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Anyone who thinks war in Korea would be anything like the Gulf Wars, Afghanistan or interventions in Libya etc needs their head examining. It will be nasty and the potential number of casualties could be huge. Moreover, both China and Russia have land borders with NK so the potential for any conflict to escalate even accidentally is there. In many ways NK is as much of a problem to Beijing and Moscow as it is to the west so the best outcome would be for the Chinese to somehow engineer the removal of the Fat Boy without completely destabilizing the country. The problem is even their influence is limited.

[stormymonday_2011]

13 hours ago, Riedquat said:

Where are they going to get the material to supply a large conscript army from? In any case I think the army has stated a few times that the last thing of any use to them would be large numbers of untrained people who don't want to be there and resent it.

Professional armies always say they don't want conscripts. The same things were being said by the British army in 1914. It did not stop conscription being introduced in 1916 when casualties and a lack of volunteers meant the army was running short of manpower.

Britain's alliance to the U.S. would be the most likely thing to drag the UK into any conflict

The UK would just be used literally as a body shop with the U.S. providing a lot of the kit just as it did in the last two World Wars. The RAF already has personnel embedded in the USAF

http://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/497038/british-pilot-soars-among-yankees/

[Riedquat]

7 hours ago, stormymonday_2011 said:

Professional armies always say they don't want conscripts. The same things were being said by the British army in 1914. It did not stop conscription being introduced in 1916 when casualties and a lack of volunteers meant the army was running short of manpower.

Things have changed a lot in warfare since then, so again, what use would a whole load of conscripts be for the British army? In a world with tanks, cruise missles, drones etc. they're more specialists than general fighting forces, with the only obvious place for lots being to keep things under control once they've been taken, or if everyone has lost their high-tech toys. Similarly the navy doesn't have any need for as many sailors as it had in Nelson's day. Broadly speaking take control goes to the most high tech and keeping control to the most numbers, at least until you've got a political solution sorted (can't keep control indefinitely without one, at least unless you're prepared to be a really sadistic *******).

Very much armchair general stuff from me of course, I've no actual experience.