NK can't invade and destroy. They don't have the strategic reserves to conduct much of land war for very long, given the vast superiority of what faces the little tin pot. Not to mention I predict his generals will be unable to stop mass surrenders. Did you know that 20 or more years ago, the NKs had to reduce the height requirement for their armed forces because the average height of their population fell due to malnutrition? His people starve, while he diddles with dangerous toys in his fantasy world.
That's not true. Look into it. In fact it was in regards to the ball bearing situation that after WW2 the review of the Strategic bombing was regarded a total failure.
Actually it is true. The real benefit to the Allied bombing came when the allies started switching targets from production facilities to facilities that produced war critical materials like oil and ball bearings. Look up the "The Schweinfurt–Regensburg mission" for one and look up the effect the allies had on the oil production and refinement during the war. Today, we use smart weapons and bombs are far more accurate than in WW2. We also better understand which targets and facilities are best to knock out and what effect it has on the ability for the enemy to wage an effective war.
A gross propagandistic view of North Korea, did you know they actually have a 1st world technological capability, they build huge sea-walls, dams, and nuclear power plants indigenously? You act like they are some stone-age country. North Korea came out of the economic famine caused by the USSR collapse in 1998-1999, the "starvation" you speak of hasn't occurred since 1996. Which was all due to an imploding main-trading partner...USSR.
Nobody is suggesting we invade North Korea on the ground, we don't have enough troops. And don't feel like losing many thousands. Been there! Done that! Hello! Nobody knows why Trump is suddenly a war-monger, but he does like to appear bellicose every chance he gets.
We can discuss the historical aspect elsewhere cuz it really doesn't have much "baring" (pun intended) here, but I am certain there's been a post war study of the whole strategic bombing campaign and it was largely found ineffective. Which is why during the shuttle-bombing phase they switched to the plan of congesting roadways with civilian refugees through targeted bombings of civilians. They had a hunch the war critical materials were being sufficiently supplied in spite of concentrated bombings.
I think any attack on North Korea will DEMAND an invasion, otherwise the North will bomb Seoul with impunity.
Just so you know I am correct even from a cursory glance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Strategic_Bombing_Survey#Failures The Survey also noted a number of failed or outcomes of limited success: Aviation production: "In 1944 the German air force is reported to have accepted a total of 39,807 aircraft of all types -- compared with 8,295 in 1939, or 15,596 in 1942 before the plants suffered any attack." According to the report, almost none of the aircraft produced in 1944 were used in combat and some may have been imaginary. Armoured fighting vehicle production "reached its wartime peak in December 1944, when 1,854 tanks and armored vehicles were produced. This industry continued to have relatively high production through February 1945." Ball bearings: "There is no evidence that the attacks on the ball-bearing industry had any measurable effect on essential war production." "Secondary Campaigns" (Operation Chastise & Operation Crossbow): "The bombing of the launching sites being prepared for the V weapons delayed the use of V-l appreciably. The attacks on the V-weapon experimental station at Peenemunde, however, were not effective; V-l was already in production near Kassel and V-2 had also been moved to an underground plant. The breaking of the Mohne and the Eder dams, though the cost was small, also had limited effect." Steel: The bombing greatly reduced production, but the resulting shortage had no contribution to the defeat. Consumer goods: "In the early years of the war—the soft war period for Germany—civilian consumption remained high. Germans continued to try for both guns and butter. The German people entered the period of the air war well stocked with clothing and other consumer goods. Although most consumer goods became increasingly difficult to obtain, Survey studies show that fairly adequate supplies of clothing were available for those who had been bombed out until the last stages of disorganization. Food, though strictly rationed, was in nutritionally adequate supply throughout the war. The Germans' diet had about the same calories as the British."
No, they do not. As the days pass, they fall further and further behind. http://www.military.com/video/force.../north-koreas-aging-war-machine/2312893106001
They'll bomb Soeul for maybe a few days, then they will have worn out the barrels on their arty and have suffered enough attrition from counter-battery and air strikes that they won't be able to do so anymore. South Korea doesn't have to invade all or North Korea. All they have to do is push back the North Korean military 20-30km and then 95% of NorK artillery will be out of the range of Soeul and the rest can be intercepted by Patriots and THAAD.
Victory? I described how wars are won. My description is sound; Ii see nothing in your response that questions this. What makes you think the US could not have removed the ability of NV to wage war?
First, precision strikes would have made LITTLE difference in Iwo Jima, and artillery from Battleships are just as heavy as precision guided missiles today and just accurate. Second, they did have tanks/armored fighting vehicles on the ground including flame thrower tanks. They did have shaped charges and HE, not sure why you're making it out like the Americans on Iwo Jima were fighting with what, sticks? Again, to your last point, they had flamer thrower TANKS, that were unable to be destroyed by Japanese forces on Iwo Jima, and could shoot hundreds of feet. But flamer throwers only hit entrances, not deep inside.
Because the US DID Not remove the ability of the NV to wage war. That's why. Do you think the US made it a goal to just keep the NVA at bey? They assessed the situation and saw they could not make the effect you determine. Why would it be any different in the better equipped/prepared North Korea?
Appallingly poor logic on your part, believing that because someone did not do something means they could not do that something. I'll ask again: What makes you think the US could not have removed the ability of NV to wage war?
Bombing ones country always has an effect, especially for critically short supplies. Was bombing in WW2 the "end all, be all"? No, but it did play a role: "Strategic bombing DID start having an impact on the German economy, but only when the Allies got smarter about their targets. Instead of hitting production facilities, the Allies tried to hit buildings that made war-critical materials. One of the first attempts was to bomb ball-bearing factories, the reason being that ball bearings were used in the production of every vehicle and eliminating them would cripple German war production. The Schweinfurt–Regensburg mission is a good example of one such raid. Though the raid did wipe out the ball bearing factories, the Germans had about three weeks worth of surpluses already in the pipeline and the output of vehicles wasn't affected. After that raid, the Allies realized that the most vulnerable part of the German war economy was oil. Subsequent attacks on German oil production and refinement were far more effective and led to widespread shortages of gasoline. Not only did this affect the ability of the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe to conduct operations, but more importantly, it limited the amount of training time pilots, tank operators, and other fuel-intensive vehicle pilots received before heading into combat. Ultimately, this had a huge impact on the quality of troops fielded by the Wehrmacht and the Luftwaffe." Sometimes you have to consider the indirect effects that some missions and some campaigns have on the outcome of a war. It's not all tanks, guns and butter.
A battleship round landing on top of a bunker or in front of it does nothing. The attack isn't precise enough. You need direct hits. Precision weapons can do that. WW2 era weapons can't. And ****ing bullshit were battleship guns of WW2 as accurate as modern PGM's. The ratio of soldier to armored vehicle in Iwo was incredibly small. You didn't have every soldier moving in an IFV. The biggest shape charge weapon they had in Iwo that could be used at standoff was a bazooka, and it was incredibly weak. It can't compare with the warhead or standoff range of a TOW or Hellfire, or even a SRAW for that matter. Flamethrower tanks had a range of about 100-150 meters. Doesn't even begin to compare to thermobaric missiles that can be fired from a mile away and do the same thing. You don't have to hit deep inside a bunker when your weapon consumes all the immediately available oxygen and suffocates the defenders.
We can only drop one at a time? Where the **** did you hear that? Each B-2 can drop anywhere between 1 and 80 bunker busters depending on how big they are.
Where are you going to get millions of allied troops to invade North Korea? An invasion is nonsense because we don't have the infrastructure or manpower to do it.
