Two wars at once?

[Dani]

First of all, let's please leave conversation about morals and justifications out of this.
I'm interested in the logistic and other hard isues on this question.

I've been following the developments of the world situation very closely lately, same as many other here I'm sure. It's beginning to look like there is a real chance (small, but it doesn't look that impossible anymore), that US will have to face to wars at once, possibly with quite little military support. One in Iraq, and another infinitely harder one in North Korea.
Now, I've read about the status of US military along the years, and I remember reading in late nineties articles stating that (because of certain policies) US forces were no longer able to fight two fullscale wars at once. Yet this might be exactly what will happen. (Iraq presumably won't be that hard, but it's a fullscale deployment nonetheless)

What do you think would happen? What if North Korea does something drastic (let's say it's not a nuclear attack) before US attacks Iraq? What if it happens in the middle of the Iraq war? What if it happens just after Saddam Hussein is deposed, and a potential anarchy sets into Iraq? (ie. totalitarian system collapses into a civil war)

To me this seems to be probably the most dangerous time in my lifetime (during the cold war, even before Glasnost MAD somehow soothed fears + the US and Soviet leadership were mostly pretty "reasonable", even if sometimes slightly senile). Even if we rule out Nukes (I think NK is much more likely to use WMDs than Iraq, or any other country for that matter), I see some very bleak futures. Even a smallscale collapse of the US is not out of the question. Not meaning that it would be defeated, but that the demands required by two simultaneous fullscale wars would require sacrifices from the American public that they have not given at least since Vietnam, and perhaps since WW2. Will the economy be able to handle it? Probably not that well. Will the public tolerate such? etc. Many many very intriguing and frightening outcomes.

We truly live in interesting times.

[Jarulf]

(I think NK is much more likely to use WMDs than Iraq, or any other country for that matter),

You should check US recent change in their view on using nuclear weapons. They appearantly no longer just have them to use if someone else uses them they now consider them as offensive weapons when needed. I believe they even have made clear that they consider them as a good choice of use in Iraq versus various targets such as bunkers.

I personally consider US as the FAR most probable user of nuclear weapons than anyone else (the fact that they are the only country that so far HAS used them doesn't really change that much, do it).

And why do everyone feel North Korea is supposed to attack someone? Perhaps news here in Sweden is lacking something, or perhaps I have missed much of it. but it looks to me that it is, again, the US that is the one screaming about war, threatening North Korea and so on (sure, they do a good job threatening back, but hey, what is a country supposed to do).

Oh well, if USA ends up in one, two or more wars currently they have only themselves to blame in my opinion, if they can't handle it tough luck, should have thought about that before.

[Vash]

Well put...

[WarBlade]

Firstly, there are elements of the US military that are not being deployed to the Gulf. In particular, forces set up for the defence of the Pacific (or defence of the US from that direction), which as it so happens is the area of interest that leads to North Korea.

Secondly, a confirmed nuclear strike would get the kind of reaction from the international community that we saw in the wake of the WTC destruction. The initial shot struck a blow, the world reacted. Roh would be facing a multi-pronged and very decisive counter attack.

[WarBlade]

And why do everyone feel North Korea is supposed to attack someone? Perhaps news here in Sweden is lacking something, or perhaps I have missed much of it. but it looks to me that it is, again, the US that is the one screaming about war, threatening North Korea and so on (sure, they do a good job threatening back, but hey, what is a country supposed to do).

Because one of it's dignitaries went so far as to announce that any sanctions applied against North Korea would be construed as an act of war.

[dwa]

As someone else pointed out, it's the North that's making the blusterings of war. I'd like to know where I might find what they are saying about the situation in Sweden, because I've worked this mission for the past 4 years, and I can assure you that it is not the intent of the US to start a war with North Korea.

[Jarulf]

and I can assure you that it is not the intent of the US to start a war with North Korea.

Yeah, I recall when US used to say that about Iraq too.

[Jarulf]

Because one of it's dignitaries went so far as to announce that any sanctions applied against North Korea would be construed as an act of war.

Yeah, what as a surprise that came as. I mean, there has not been any threatening of various forms, or pressure put on them and so on(sorry for not finding good english words) versus North Korea (I am NOT defending them here as a country or for they actions, mind you), especially not by US. So yeah that came totally out of the blue no? Gee. Talk about pulling something out of total context.

[WarBlade]

Yeah, what as a surprise that came as. I mean, there has not been any threatening of various forms, or pressure put on them and so on(sorry for not finding good english words) versus North Korea (I am NOT defending them here as a country or for they actions, mind you), especially not by US. So yeah that came totally out of the blue no? Gee. Talk about pulling something out of total context.

Not really. There has been a massive contingent US Marines reinforcing South Korea for a long time now. One of the jobs on the duty roster is to stand there with binoculars staring at North Koreans who likewise stand there gazing back over no-mans land, each side making sure that the the isn't up to something.

See as Occi has pointed out a few times recently, the war between the north and south was never officially ended so the two sides were locked in a perpetual cease fire.

Now imagine your job is to sit there with gun and binoculars at hand thinking of US Marines as "the enemy", a situation that has persisted for decades. By now it's natural for them to consider Americans as potential attackers and natural to keep the US armed forces high on the list of priority targets.

[Jarulf]

Either I missunderstood this post or you missunderstood mine. I only meant to be ironic (is that the word?)

[MonTy]

Hail all,

I just got back from working 12 hours, and have finals this evening, so have to keep it short. Basically I was wondering that if two wars do break out, would the US would have to hold a draft? Or no, since more nuclear weapons would be used? I'm not effected by a draft for several reasons, but it sure would be a terrible thing for most teenagers; on many levels. Most people who are out of shape and overweight (more and more now a days) are going to be terrified. Hell, they even took the mile run out of my old high school this year because it was too hard on the kids. How pathetic is that? Also, if some don't mind, I would be interested to hear what effects a draft could bring upon the country.

[--Pete]

Hi,

From being drafted to being combat ready takes a minimum of about six months. And that is for "easier" tasks. I don't see either conflict lasting that long.

The only potential for a draft is if somehow the USA gets itself into another Vietnam situation. A political war, with poorly defined objectives, bad ROE, and reactive rather than proactive policies. In a real war, that combination is the kiss of death. Since we're already engaged in two phony wars of that type (drugs and terrorism), perhaps we can avoid a third.

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

The first use fears are groundless. The removal of tactical nukes from our inventories in 1991 was a landmark decision toard not risking first use. We still retain nukes as a deterrent, simply because the genii has been out of the bottle since Hiroshima, and the deterrent threat is one way to convince some others not to risk using them on us. Trouble is, extra national players, such as terrorist groups, don't have a country at risk, so the deterrent will not work versus them.

There are some accounts that claim Eisenhower threatened the North Koreans and Chinese with Nukes in 1953 to force a cease fire. There is some question whether or not a not-so- subtle message was sent to Saddam via third parties, pre 1991, about "if you use gas, wear lead underwear." Not sure if either is true. A policy of no first use was not adopted in the 1980's (publicly) simply to scare the Russians. With Pres Reagan at the button, that bluff worked. That public position was very contentious in Europe, to say the least, but the Wall came down. :o How much that little piece of the puzzle helped is anyone's guess, given the complex mosaic that was European politics of the Cold War.

Insofar as North Korea, I agree with your assessment of "why would they attack now?" There was never an armistice, never and end to hostilities, there has only been a cease fire for 50 years. Should the North decide that hostilities will commence, they will attack. That has been the case since 1953. The Japanese have a stake in the outcome, as do the Chinese, and I don't think we have heard the last from either of them.

[Occhidiangela]

If that policy is revived, which is only a vote away since registration for selective service is still required for men, I will be one of the first on the picket lines until women are required to register and be eligible as well. Time for the feminists freeloaders who see the military as a prestige inroad into "the man's world" to put up or shut up.

[Jarulf]

The first use fears are groundless.

So you are claiming that the information that has been found in media several times, for example telling that US would like to use "smaller" nuclear bombs on for example bunkers hard to get at is all wrong and media errror?

And what was the cnage made recently (within last year) in regard to the use of nuclear weapons by the US?


Regardless of which, it is my personal opinion that of all the countries in the world (that can) the odds for US using it are the lowest. And I doubt there is much you can say to change my view on that, it is based on what I see, hear and note about what is going on in the world. Probably only see some, much is of course propagande, purposly missleading media and such but also judging by what actually has happened. No offense to you americans, but it is my honest opinion that US as a country (and their leaders) suck more and more every day. And the funny thing is that they then get surprised and wonder why no one likes them or want to do as they say

[Occhidiangela]

1. It is American policy, in general, to conduct its major regional contingencies in coalitions. That is, going to war as part of a coalition. So each big plan includes going at it with allies.

2. There was a huge debate in Congress post Cold War on what the base requirement was once the "Big Bear Threat based model" was changed. The "Capabilities Based" planning went from a base force of 12 divisions and 12 Carrier battle groups and twenty air wings (under Powell/Cheney) to 10 divisions and 11 battle groups (and IIRC sixteen air wings) under the Bottom Up Review that Aspen/Shalikashvili presided over. This has further eroded since then.

The reduction in force begged the question, particularly from a logistic support and heavy lift perspective, was can you fight two fights at once. A variety of views, "Win hold reinforce" were bandied about, and a number of Op Plans were called into question since there seemed to be double tasking of some units depending on the contingency. Also, the mobilization and deployment of reserve units runs into other questions since Pres Clinton's heavy engagement in "Operations Other Than War" dug deep into reserve units who in the Cold War never deployed.

Can we fight two big fights at once? The answer is yes . . . but . . . it will take a serious mobilization of the Reserves and deployment of National Guard assets to do it successfully. And most importantly, the full cooperation of various allies.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I doubt there is much you can say to change my view on that

Glad to see you are keeping an open mind. Since you buy your attitude from the same place you buy your information, I see no need to waste time with you.

--Pete

[TheDragoon]

Hasn't he US maintained that they reserve the option to use nuclear weapons for the last few decades? Just because they continue that policy and actually form teams to determine the effects of using a nuke doesn't mean that they will choose to use them.

Oh well, if USA ends up in one, two or more wars currently they have only themselves to blame in my opinion, if they can't handle it tough luck, should have thought about that before

I see, so if another country pulls out of a major treaty designed to suppress the creation of additional nuclear weaponry just because they don't think the US would be able to do anything about it due to their actions against terrorism, it's the fault of the US? Now don't get me wrong, I'm not too much a fan of the way this whole situation is being handled, but I can play the devils advocate from time to time. ;)

[TaMeOlta]

:lol: Jarulf , thats why we change Presidents every four years (or eight years if they supply Saturday Night Live with enough comedy skits ;) ) so we can blame everything that goes wrong on the current president and his cabinet selection.

[NiteFox]

Ah, try British democracy. Where the ruling party will blame all of the problems in the country on the previous party, as Labour have done since they were elected all the way back in 1997. After 18 years of Conservative rule.