4 ms·

If I was in south Korea I would really be looking at Ukraine as an example of getting attacked by a nuclear armed adversary. Whether it really applies to their

If I was in south Korea I would really be looking at Ukraine as an example of getting attacked by a nuclear armed adversary. Whether it really applies to their situation or not, if I was there the message I would get is that they will send me guns but no one's going to land any troops

hollerith 4y ago
If NK invades SK, I hope my country (the US) will land troops to assist SK (and I always thought that that was my government's plan). I'll drive to the countryside and dig a fallout shelter: citizenship entails obligations, and I'm not a pussy.
- thehappypm 4y ago
  Easy for you to say safe in your shelter! How about going to the front lines or sending your sons?
  - hollerith 4y ago
    I'm 62 with no combat training or experience, so the US Army wouldn't take me even if I begged them to. I have no sons. I do care about the sons of other Americans, but the only American troops being landed would have volunteered for military service. (Also, I certainly wouldn't consider myself safe even after my successfully making the fallout shelter: particularly, it could easily be fatal for me if large numbers of my fellow citizens who were caught unprepared find my fallout shelter.)
    - philihp 4y ago
      It's pretty easy to advocate for another Vietnam/Afghanistan when you don't have any skin in the game, and you have the means to go out into the country and bury your head in the sand.
      - hollerith 4y ago
        Everyone in my country has skin in the game in case of a nuclear attack on my country, which is the possibility I was commenting on.
    - Maursault 4y ago
      > so the US Army wouldn't take me even if I begged them to. They definitely would if you happened to be a clinical psychologist.
    - red-iron-pine 4y ago
      > I have no sons. I do care about the sons of other Americans, but the only American troops being landed would have volunteered for military service. We drafted people for the first Korean War. Why do you think we won't have to do the same for the 2nd? UKR vs RUS has shown just how quickly modern weapons annihilate troop levels.
      - hollerith 4y ago
        This time, but not last time, the US military has decades of experience operating without conscription. Changes in technology and in the methods (e.g., combined arms) used by the US military make untrained conscripts less useful to the US military than they were in the 1950s. One exception that that general rule is that untrained conscripts remain approximately as useful as they used to be in occupying captured enemy territory, e.g., the occupations of Germany and Japan after WWII. The US would probably not try to conquer and occupy NK after an attack by NK, however (partly because such an occupation would require much higher troop levels than "merely" destroying NK's capacity to wage offensive war, and conscription would be very unpopular among US voters; partly because just like in the first Korean war, China really wouldn't like it). The US would probably restrict its objectives to repelling the invader from SK while destroying as much of NK's capacity to mount a new invasion as practical.
- luckylion 4y ago
  > I always thought that that was my government's plan It was when NK wasn't a nuclear threat. Plans change fundamentally when that attribute changes. If Russia wasn't armed with nukes, it wouldn't have invaded Ukraine, because it would lose every conventional war against Western forces that might help Ukraine. But due to nuclear weapons, Russia knows it has nothing to fear and can act in any way it likes. If Ukraine had been armed with nukes, Russia wouldn't have invaded either, because it would've eventually meant certain destruction for Russia (and the world, but they don't care about the world).
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
ianburrell 4y ago
US and South Korea have a defense treaty equivalent to NATO. US doesn’t need to send troops cause they are already there. An entire division.
- Beached 4y ago
  last I heard South Korea host the most US troops out of any country outside of the US itself.

hollerith 4y ago

If NK invades SK, I hope my country (the US) will land troops to assist SK (and I always thought that that was my government's plan). I'll drive to the countryside and dig a fallout shelter: citizenship entails obligations, and I'm not a pussy.

thehappypm 4y ago
Easy for you to say safe in your shelter! How about going to the front lines or sending your sons?
- hollerith 4y ago
  I'm 62 with no combat training or experience, so the US Army wouldn't take me even if I begged them to. I have no sons. I do care about the sons of other Americans, but the only American troops being landed would have volunteered for military service. (Also, I certainly wouldn't consider myself safe even after my successfully making the fallout shelter: particularly, it could easily be fatal for me if large numbers of my fellow citizens who were caught unprepared find my fallout shelter.)
  - philihp 4y ago
    It's pretty easy to advocate for another Vietnam/Afghanistan when you don't have any skin in the game, and you have the means to go out into the country and bury your head in the sand.
    - hollerith 4y ago
      Everyone in my country has skin in the game in case of a nuclear attack on my country, which is the possibility I was commenting on.
  - Maursault 4y ago
    > so the US Army wouldn't take me even if I begged them to. They definitely would if you happened to be a clinical psychologist.
  - red-iron-pine 4y ago
    > I have no sons. I do care about the sons of other Americans, but the only American troops being landed would have volunteered for military service. We drafted people for the first Korean War. Why do you think we won't have to do the same for the 2nd? UKR vs RUS has shown just how quickly modern weapons annihilate troop levels.
    - hollerith 4y ago
      This time, but not last time, the US military has decades of experience operating without conscription. Changes in technology and in the methods (e.g., combined arms) used by the US military make untrained conscripts less useful to the US military than they were in the 1950s. One exception that that general rule is that untrained conscripts remain approximately as useful as they used to be in occupying captured enemy territory, e.g., the occupations of Germany and Japan after WWII. The US would probably not try to conquer and occupy NK after an attack by NK, however (partly because such an occupation would require much higher troop levels than "merely" destroying NK's capacity to wage offensive war, and conscription would be very unpopular among US voters; partly because just like in the first Korean war, China really wouldn't like it). The US would probably restrict its objectives to repelling the invader from SK while destroying as much of NK's capacity to mount a new invasion as practical.
luckylion 4y ago
> I always thought that that was my government's plan It was when NK wasn't a nuclear threat. Plans change fundamentally when that attribute changes. If Russia wasn't armed with nukes, it wouldn't have invaded Ukraine, because it would lose every conventional war against Western forces that might help Ukraine. But due to nuclear weapons, Russia knows it has nothing to fear and can act in any way it likes. If Ukraine had been armed with nukes, Russia wouldn't have invaded either, because it would've eventually meant certain destruction for Russia (and the world, but they don't care about the world).
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

ianburrell 4y ago

US and South Korea have a defense treaty equivalent to NATO. US doesn’t need to send troops cause they are already there. An entire division.

Beached 4y ago
last I heard South Korea host the most US troops out of any country outside of the US itself.