HY 2020 Unit IV Assessment

UNIT IV Assessment

#1: I answered option (b.) of the question:

Discuss the major military operations—land, sea, and air—of the Korean War from January 1951 until the conclusion of the conflict in July 1953. Describe key events that show U.S. actions as a superpower. Also, provide a discussion of the major leaders involved in U.S. military operations during this time period, and identify the military spending trends in this time period.

The United States and the United Nations had a terrible start to the war in the summer of 1950. We had massive numbers lost due to the North Korean forces. Due to this vast numbers and casualties, the United States and the Republic of Korea forces were pushed into the seas. Seeing the loss and the impending doom of the United States and the Republic of Korea, the United Nations decided to step in and assist. They named Douglas MacArthur commander of the United Nations Forces. Hoping that his strategies and influences would turn the tide of the war. The Security Council, run by Truman’s Administration, launched an offensive that captured the dominant terrain necessary to frustrate any further Communist attacks (Millett, A.R., Maslowski, P. & Feis, W.B., 2012). A year and a half after General Ridgway had replaced MacArthur, the United Nations small victory of bringing the communist party to the peace table was not much of an accomplishment because of the stalemate of the war. One of the Operations was the establishment of the KANSAS-WYOMING line that the EUSAK would be defending. Defending this line and holding its position would meant that a network of valleys and high ridges would guarantee the domination of the northern terrain of the 38th Parallel in Central Korea. With the land forces dominating the terrain, the moonscaped mountains, The “Punchbowl,” “Bloody Ridge,” and “Heartbreak Ridge,” was taken from communist contrail, which pushed the enemy forces deeper into Korea. With this valor, the casualties of war decreased dramatically and the ratio grew to over ten to one. This means that ten of the enemy were killed to one of the United States/United Nations troop’s deaths. “The United Nation Command’s air campaign, marked by geographic limitations and frustrations, contributed to the success of the allied war effort (Millett, A.R., Maslowski, P. & Feis, W.B., 2012). Their overall mission was to destroy the Communists’ interceptor force. The reason behind with was because the Communists force had about 1000 MiG-15 fighter jets to their disposal, stationed on both sides of Yalu. Being outnumbered 3 to one, we relied on the experience and training of our pilots. We eventually out maneuvered them with our F-86’s and even with the MiG’s better quality, they never really left their base areas. With the bombings and attached we took more than half of their air force capabilities. One turning point of the war was the establishment of NATO. It took the United States into a more active military role in Asia, which now joined Europe as part of the Free World system of collective, forward defense (Millett, A.R., Maslowski, P. & Feis, W.B., 2012). The total cost of the war was about 40 Billion dollars and over 2 million men had gone to war. About 35,000 were causalities in both killed in action and soldiers perishing in the war zone. With the overall casualties of North Korea and the implementation of NATO, a peace treaty was passes in 1953 at Panmunjom, which is still active to this day.

#2: Discuss John F. Kennedy’s concept of flexible response. How did this policy differ from Dwight D. Eisenhower’s New Look? What impact did flexible response have on the U.S. military and NATO? Who were the major political and military personalities involved in this policy?

John F. Kennedy’s implemented a flexible response turned into a protection method in 1961 to deal with the Kennedy administration’s skepticism of Dwight Eisenhower’s new look and its coverage of big retaliation. Flexible response requires mutual deterrence at strategic, tactical, and conventional stages, giving America the capability to respond to aggression throughout the spectrum of struggle, no longer limited most effective to nuclear fingers. Flexible response was a protection system executed by John F. Kennedy in 1961 to address the Kennedy organization’s distrust of Dwight Eisenhower’s New Look and its arrangement of gigantic countering. Adaptable reaction calls for common discouragement at key, strategic, and customary levels, giving the United States the capacity to react to hostility over the range of fighting, not restricted just too atomic arms. This method believed that nuclear war was not the only answer. I agree 100 percent because nuclear war would mean a large fallout for the countries. Radiation would be so high, that life in certain areas would cease to exist and could remain inhabitable for years to come. The Flexible Response was created to help determine more choices in the realms of fighting, other than the atomic alternative, this would mean looking into many other options rather than the possibility of wars and suffering the casualties that would some with that. Atomic wars should not be the first thing that is discussed, but as a last possibility. We haven’t used atomic war or dropped a bomb since Japan. The New Look approach, however at first valuable, rapidly ended up plainly outdated with the presentation of between mainland conveyances frameworks that undermined the believability of a prevention risk. The foundation of the United States what’s more, European safeguard procedure was then debilitated as the United States could never again depend on atomic dangers to give security to it and its partners. The Kennedy principle did exclude the capacity to battle atomic wars in light of it would undermine prevention, was innovatively unworkable, would fuel the weapons contest, and was not politically doable. Significance was additionally set on counterinsurgency and the improvement of unpredictable military powers, whimsical strategies, and “metro activity” programs. Instead of the focus on the atomic bombs and their significance, it went more into the thought of a better military, land, air and sea. Doing so would, in time, make a stinger more strategic force that can be as deadly and devastating as atomic warfare. I know my personal beliefs do not need to be on this page, atomic warfare should not be 100 percent out of the question. It should be the last means possible. With the length of effort we have put and our reputation as a country, we cannot let another force defeat us. Everything we have built upon throughout the years cannot be ruined. Our country would suffer dearly.