NEWSWEEK: ONE MILLION DEAD IS BEST SCENARIO FOR NORTH KOREA WAR, AND THAT IF IT DOES NOT GO NUCLEAR OR TRIGGER WORLD WAR THREE (ESTIMATED AS HIGHLY PROBABLE)


Newsweek, a neocon magazine, has a sobering analysis of the toll of  a second Korean War if Trump manages to start one as a diversion from an FBI probe into his Russian ties and from his historically low approval ratings.

Newsweek estimates there could be at least one million dead even if nuclear warheads are not used (false flags?) and even if the conflict does not trigger a wider, military confrontation with China and Russia.

If nuclear missiles are used and World War Three starts, we are talking about an horrific scenario.

To think Trump has turned down a reasonable offer from China to stop North Korea developing nuclear missiles in return for a stop to US South Korean military exercises.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4440024/Nikki-Haley-tells-North-Korea-line.html

I’m sorry to say, but Trump and his advisors really are dangerous, deluded maniacs. The mainstream media are depicting Kim Jong as crazy. But that looks like typical war propagand. It’s implausible that Kim Jong, who has been so ruthless and determined in trying to cling onto power and enjoy the good things of life,  is going to start a chain of events which he knows will lead to his destruction. The idea that Kim Jong is going to fire a nuclear missile at the USA, the moment he gets one, knowing he will end up nuclear dust one minute later is implausible.

The question is now if the Pentagon, Senate or Congress can stop him on time.

“U.S. war planners believe North Korean forces would to try to overrun South Korea’s defenses and get to Seoul before the U.S. and the South could respond with overwhelming force. As Cha says, “as wars go, this would be the most unforgiving battle conditions that can be imagined—an extremely high density of enemy and allied forces—over 2 million mechanized forces all converging on a total battlespace the equivalent of the distance between Washington, D.C., and Boston.’’ The United States would immediately dispatch four to six ground combat divisions of up to 20,000 troops each, 10 Air Force wings of about 20 fighters per unit and four to five aircraft carriers. In Cha’s scenario, U.S. and South Korean “soldiers would be fighting with little defense against DPRK artillery, aerial bombardments, and in an urban warfare environment polluted by 5,000 metric tons of DPRK chemical agents.”

Even if that artillery barrage and push into the South gave the North the initiative, there is no question, military planners all say, who would ultimately prevail in a second Korean War. The U.S. and South Korea have far too much firepower, and if Kim Jong Un decided to go to war, that would be end of his regime, whether he knows it or not.

But this would not be a one-week walkover, like the first Gulf War against Saddam Hussein, when his forces were arrayed like clay pigeons in the Iraqi and Kuwaiti deserts, where they were easily destroyed by U.S. air power. Conventional thinking in the Pentagon is that it would be a four- to six-month conflict with high-intensity combat and many dead. In 1994, when President Bill Clinton contemplated the use of force to knock out the North’s nuclear weapons program, the then commander of U.S.-Republic of Korea forces, Gary Luck, told his commander in chief that a war on the peninsula would likely result in 1 million dead, and nearly $1 trillion of economic damage.

The carnage would conceivably be worse now, given that the U.S. believes Pyongyang has 10 to 16 nuclear weapons. If the North could figure out a way to deliver one, why wouldn’t Kim go all in?”

http://www.newsweek.com/2017/05/05/what-war-north-korea-looks-588861.html

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: