The odds of war

#1
lawgator1

lawgator1

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
75,016
Likes
44,367
#1
With the N Korea situation and Irain simmering, wondering what you guys think are the odds of U.S. being at war with one of them in the next 6 months. When I say "war," I don't necessarily mean full scale hostilities, but let's say sustained military action, not just a skirmish on a boat.

I am going to say

Odds of war with N Korea: 30 %
Odds of war with Iran: 5 %

I put North Korea so high because it appears they are so reckless and may well plan on hostilities for purposes of involving China in their plight. I put the odds with Iran so low because it seems like that is something more likely to be a consequence of an Israeli action than anything else.
 
#2
#2
I would have Iran down to less than 1 %. I agree with NK at 30 %.

The chances of a unilateral engagement is 0 %, however.
 
#3
#3
I don't think the US will do the dirty work against either. We may provide air support or lob some cruise missiles but I really think Israel and SK may do it. War in NK is much more likely and against Iran is almost zero
 
#4
#4
War with Iran would be a strategic error. I feel like this election controversy plays into our favor, and we shouldn't squander it.
 
#5
#5
utvolpj said:
I don't think the US will do the dirty work against either. We may provide air support or lob some cruise missiles but I really think Israel and SK may do it. War in NK is much more likely and against Iran is almost zero
Click to expand...

If war breaks out between North Korea and South Korea, I believe they would target our military bases and Seoul, this would automatically warrant an attack and our involvement in that engagement. We would be forced into much more than just cruise missiles and air support.
 
#6
#6
After thinking about it pj I have to say I don't think we would see any significant number of ground troops unless North Korea tries to overrun the south. North Korea has large numbers of Special Operations troops though, ours are heavily deployed in Afghanistan. Unless the South is invaded we would probably be using air strikes and guided missiles on strategic targets as you said. If the South is overrun that changes the ballgame IMO.
 
#7
#7
I think 30 and 5 are both too high. As crazy as Il is and as much as he enjoys his antagonizing, I can't imgaine he is crazy enough to do something that actually gets Obama to take action. But then again, I started a thread asking who gets more US soliders and US civilians killed via war/terrorism during their tenure, Obama or Bush. I believe Obama because weakness invites predators.
 
#8
#8
Virtually zero with Iran - unless an Iranian diplomat gets a bad hotdog at one of the 4th of July parties.

Less than 10% with NK.
 
#9
#9
allvol123 said:
I think 30 and 5 are both too high. As crazy as Il is and as much as he enjoys his antagonizing, I can't imgaine he is crazy enough to do something that actually gets Obama to take action. But then again, I started a thread asking who gets more US soliders and US civilians killed via war/terrorism during their tenure, Obama or Bush. I believe Obama because weakness invites predators.
Click to expand...


The NKorean situation has nothing to do with who the U.S. Presdient is.
 
#11
#11
lawgator1 said:
The NKorean situation has nothing to do with who the U.S. Presdient is.
Click to expand...

Kin Jong Ill did not threaten the US so openly when Bush was in office. You really think that Obama's perceived weakness has nothing to do with it?
 
#13
#13
KB5252 said:
Kin Jong Ill did not threaten the US so openly when Bush was in office. You really think that Obama's perceived weakness has nothing to do with it?
Click to expand...

allvol123 said:
I second VBH's remark.

So you would contend that a state such as NK does not take different actions with regards to who the US President is?
Click to expand...


UTTER BULLSHITE!!

He threatened us all the time when Bush was in office.

I remind you that their FIRST test of a nuclear device was under Bush's presidency.
 
#14
#14
lawgator1 said:
UTTER BULLSHITE!!

He threatened us all the time when Bush was in office.

I remind you that their FIRST test of a nuclear device was under Bush's presidency.
Click to expand...


I see. So what percentages would you have placed on Bush going to war with NK? Had to be much higher with the war mongering loose cannon that was Bush, correct? You have it at 30 with the peacemaker. Why so high with the peacemaker when the war mongerer did not get us into a war with NK?
 
#15
#15
KB5252 said:
After thinking about it pj I have to say I don't think we would see any significant number of ground troops unless North Korea tries to overrun the south. North Korea has large numbers of Special Operations troops though, ours are heavily deployed in Afghanistan. Unless the South is invaded we would probably be using air strikes and guided missiles on strategic targets as you said. If the South is overrun that changes the ballgame IMO.
Click to expand...

Having served on the Korean border for 16 months, i can say with 100% certainty that the RoKA would have no problem dealing with the NKPA, at all.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#18
#18
lawgator1 said:
UTTER BULLSHITE!!

He threatened us all the time when Bush was in office.

I remind you that their FIRST test of a nuclear device was under Bush's presidency.
Click to expand...

Yes, but he has become more threatening in both actions and rhetoric since Obama has been president. It may just be coincidence (although I doubt it), but it is impossible to deny!
 
#19
#19
JTrainDavis said:
Having served on the Korean border for 16 months, i can say with 100% certainty that the RoKA would have no problem dealing with the NKPA, at all.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Even though they are outnumbered? I also read that North Korea has a huge number of their forces that are special ops, though I doubt they have very good armament or training.

Please go into further detail about the two forces since you have insight not available to the rest of us.
 
#20
#20
Axion Jaxion said:
What does he have to do with the current topic of North Korea and the president?
Click to expand...

he's saying a president doesn't matter about NK.

but Bin ladin specifically pointed out that he knew clinton was weak on defending America. we had 6 attacks during his admin and they were treated as individual criminal acts, not as a coordinated effort by a terrorist group. bin ladin called us a paper tiger.

amazingly we did not have attacks when Bush was in office. i know 9/11 happened during the Bush administration, but these guys were planning this attack for years before Bush got into office.
 
#21
#21
lawgator1 said:
UTTER BULLSHITE!!

He threatened us all the time when Bush was in office.

I remind you that their FIRST test of a nuclear device was under Bush's presidency.
Click to expand...

I think it's naive to think that NK actions don't vary by the administration in power.

Also, you're original question asked about US military involvement with NK within the next 6 months. Who the U.S. president is at the time certainly has a big role in that.

Overall, the NK situation and it's impact in the next six months is HIGHLY dependent on which person is president.
 
#22
#22
you really think hussein is going do anything? we waited for days until he made a statement on iran's protest. Europe made a statement condeming the election way before hussein did, even our congress and senate made statements condeming the election and the aggression against the protestors before hussein.

When hussein finally gives his speech, he says nothing. he doesn't committ on any type of foreign policy unless it's forcing Israel to stop bulding on it's own land. he will not try to stop the missle launch. he'll condemn it and loose sleep over, he'll be mad over and that's about it.
 
#23
#23
KB5252 said:
Kin Jong Ill did not threaten the US so openly when Bush was in office. You really think that Obama's perceived weakness has nothing to do with it?
Click to expand...

That is patently false. NK's missile technology and nuclear capabilities did nothing but increase while Bush was in office, and in fact, accelerated. The over-the-top threats and rhetoric from that regime has, is, and will continue to be directed at the U.S.. This is independent of who is in the oval office and whether they are perceived weak, start wars, or call them an "axis of evil".
 
#24
#24
volinbham said:
I think it's naive to think that NK actions don't vary by the administration in power.

Also, you're original question asked about US military involvement with NK within the next 6 months. Who the U.S. president is at the time certainly has a big role in that.

Overall, the NK situation and it's impact in the next six months is HIGHLY dependent on which person is president.
Click to expand...

Vary maybe, but they don't really change as far as frequency or tone. Their position will be to threaten the US no matter who is president.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top