That's, "neo-con". And given that so many neo-cons are ex-liberals who don't get hot and bothered over the 2nd Amendment, I can't imagine it's a scenario to which they give much thought.

Sorry for the grammar error.

That makes me wonder, is there such a thing as a new-con?

Go back and re-read my post.

I was not defending the plausibility of an Invasion of the Russians and Chinese. I was dispelling Excalibur's naive impression that the North Korean Military is a bunch of pushovers.

Well what has the North Korean military's done recently that's impressive. Numbers isn't everything in an army these days.

Most Armies in the World including the German Bundeswehr, the Chinese PLA, and the Japanese Army have not done anything "impressive" recently, it does not mean that they have no potential.

I'm not going to reiterate ;just go back and read my post about the North Korean Military.

It's been said that in war victory goes to the side that makes the least number of mistakes.

Being very good at logistics can help one to overcome a mistake - even a big one.

It pains me to admit this, but in WWII we (the United States) was actually outfought for much of the war - especially by the Germans on land. Truth be told the Germans were better at tactics and their training and organization was superior. Naval and air were a different story, but I focus on land operations. And I'm talking about the U.S. Army not the Marines.

It really wasn't until the last year of the war (give or take a few months) that the U.S. started to catch up to the Germans. Much of what the U.S. Army changed was based off of what the Germans were doing.

However the Army kept advancing because the U.S. had a superior logistical network. It wasn't just that the United States was able to produce so much stuff, but that the U.S. military was able to get all that cool stuff to the front lines. The U.S. Army had more trucks, more radios, better overall support, an outstanding firecontrol system (artillery) and more airpower.

The Germans frequently outfought us (Battle of the Bulge, Kassarine Pass, Anzio, Mt. Cassino, Hurtegen Forest) but we were able to overcome the Germans by sheer might and we were able to replace our losses. The Germans couldn't.

No I'm not knocking our soldiers. Those American troops fought and fought hard. They fought in horrible conditions and even when they broke and ran they would stop and dig in and fight back. But they didn't have the type of martial tradition that the Germans did. The Germans had learned from WWI and continued to learn. We basically started from scratch in 41 having forgotten everything we learned in WWI.

But ultimately we were better at logistics than the Germans. And that made all the difference. It might not be as ego satisfying but it's the reality.

Yeah, anyone serving their first stretch in prison. :D

That's really clever, Spartan. It made me laugh. Thank you.

I was responding only to the part where you implied that the DPRK with Russian and Chinese might be able to invade the U.S.

Also, I don't think Excalibur is completely wrong. The DPRK's capabilities as a conventional force are fairly limited in spite of their numbers. Most analysts are far more concerned about their secret agents and the possibility of these operatives carrying out terrorist attacks, than they are about the North ever trying to invade the South.

You are 100% right, even though I too must admit it pains me to admit this stuff. The Wehrmacht was, in many ways, far more capable as a fighting force than the U.S. Army. And the Luftwaffe was equally impressive (just compare the kill totals for many of their aces versus ours...it makes our pilots look like amateurs).

In the end, logistics were the deciding factor in the European theater. This, combined with Hitler's choices to open the Eastern front without going after the U.K., was what led to Germany's downfall.