North Korea has accused Seoul of using human shields on the island where firing from the North killed two South Korean civilians this week.
The North's state media said the South was using the deaths for propaganda.
Two marines also died in the shelling of the South's Yeonpyeong island. Their funerals were held on Saturday amid rising anger in the South.
The North has also issued a new warning on US-South Korea military exercises, set to start on Sunday.
The four days of exercises include the USS George Washington aircraft carrier and its battle group.
North Korea's official KCNA news agency said: "If the US brings its carrier to the West Sea of Korea (Yellow Sea), no-one can predict the ensuing consequences."
'Telephone notice'
The BBC's Chris Hogg in Seoul says that, coming just a few hours before the military exercises, the latest warnings and threats from North Korea are certain to anger the South further.
The two marines were killed when North Korea fired dozens of artillery shells at Yeonpyeong Island
In Seoul on Saturday, about 1,000 South Korean military veterans protested at the deaths, burning the North Korean flag and portraits of Pyongyang's leaders. The protesters shouted slogans demanding revenge and condemning the North's "atrocity".
KCNA said Seoul was using the civilian casualties for propaganda, in its words "creating the impression that the defenceless civilians were exposed to indiscriminate shelling from the North".
Pyongyang said it had been provoked by the South's military exercises, which were being carried out close to Yeonpyeong.
It said the North had sent a "telephone notice" on the morning of the shelling "to prevent the clash at the last moment" but the South continued its "provocation".
South Korea says two men in their 60s, who were working on the island, were killed by the shells.
The funeral service for the two marines who died, Seo Jeong-woo and Moon Kwang-wook, was held at a military hospital in Seongnam, close to Seoul, on Saturday and was broadcast on television nationwide.
Hundreds of government and military officials, politicians, religious leaders, activists and civilians attended. Among them were Prime Minister Kim Hwang-sik .
Officials and relatives placed white flowers on the two coffins draped in the South Korean flag. Marines sang as the coffins were carried out.
Maj Gen You Nak-jun, the head of the marine corps, said: "We'll certainly repay North Korea a thousand-fold for killing and harming our marines.
"South Korean active-duty marines and all reserve forces will engrave this anger and hostility in our bones and we will make sure we take revenge on North Korea."
South Korea's new Defence Minister Kim Kwan-jin said that tougher action was needed against the North.
"We need to deal with North Korea's provocations strongly. We need to hit back multiple times as hard."
'Top priority'
The US says Sunday's joint military drills are defensive, but are designed to deter the North from carrying out further attacks.
Continue reading the main story
North Korea: Timeline 2010
26 March: South Korean warship, Cheonan, sinks, killing 46 sailors
20 May: Panel says a North Korean torpedo sank the ship; Pyongyang denies involvement
July-September: South Korea and US hold military exercises; US places more sanctions on Pyongyang
29 September: North holds rare party congress seen as part of father-to-son succession move
29 October: Troops from North and South Korea exchange fire across the land border
12 November: North Korea shows US scientist new - undeclared - uranium enrichment facility
23 November: North shells island of Yeonpyeong, killing at least four South Koreans
The North calls the military drills an "unpardonable provocation". State media promised a "sea of fire" if North Korean territory was violated.
China said the drills would escalate tension and warned against any infractions into its exclusive economic zone, which extends 320km (200 miles) from its coast.
The US has called on China to increase its pressure on Pyongyang to prevent further incidents.
China has said its "top priority" is to keep the situation under control. Beijing has begun a series of talks in an attempt to ease the tension.
On Friday, China's Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi met the North's ambassador in person, and spoke on the phone to his US and South Korean counterparts, according to the state-run Xinhua news agency.
However, the top US military commander, Adm Mike Mullen, said he did not know "why China doesn't push harder" with Pyongyang.
In an interview with CNN due to be broadcast on Sunday but released as a transcript, Adm Mullen said Beijing appeared to mistakenly believe it could control North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-il.
"I'm not sure he is controllable," Adm Mullen said.
South Korea has increased its troop numbers on Yeonpyeong and says it will change its rules of engagement to allow it to respond more forcefully if incidents such as Tuesday's happen again.
This week's tension comes as the North is undergoing an apparent transition of power from Kim Jong-il to his young son Kim Jong-un.
This looks bad D:. What do you guys think of this, do you think we will get involved in this struggle?
There will be war on the korean peninsula in our lifetime. Whether or not it starts tomorrow or in the next couple days, I couldn't say. N. Korea makes a lot of empty threats. Ironically enough, its when they AREN'T threatening you that you have to worry (Cheonan and the artillery incident occurred without much warning at all). Either way, interesting times indeed.
Keep in mind though, we have a naval battlegroup already there. If North Korea wants to try and shell Seoul, we can open up from a greater distance and silence that artiller, as can the South Koreans. If (more than likely should say "when") the cease-fire officially ends between these two, it will be an ugly and bloody fight. I do think that Jong-Il or -un will probably try to use a nuclear weapon if any of the forces push to Pyongyang. However, we (implying us and the South Koreanns) will probably have blown that place into piles of rubble A-Z, so that may or may not be an issue.
However, I could just be blowin smoke because North Korea usually pulls these kinda stunts to show the world "hey, we still exist guys, take us seriously!" Let's hope it's just another one of those situations.
The usa wouldn't take this crap from anybody ese. It's time the world learned that having nukes won't save you from an good ole butt whoopin. If we don't more countries will think nukes are the way to do what ever the hell you want.
CrashUSAR wrote:If North Korea wants to try and shell Seoul, we can open up from a greater distance and silence that artiller, as can the South Koreans.
Not fast enough to avert massive civilian casualties.
Almost every post-dated study of Kosovo and Desert Storm indicate that air power isn't rapidly effective against defensive positions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sexiest_hero wrote:The usa wouldn't take this crap from anybody ese. It's time the world learned that having nukes won't save you from an good ole butt whoopin. If we don't more countries will think nukes are the way to do what ever the hell you want.
Until a nuclear nation starts killing more people than nuclear war would entail, then there really isn't any reason to do anything about such behavior that isn't connected to ego.
Encourage Japan to go nuclear. Next move the forces stationed in South Korea to Taiwan. Both of those moves are designed to get China's attention. I don't understand where China thinks the radioactive fallout will go? They are rightthere afterall.
Actually, the prevailing winds would blow nearly all the fallout away from China and onto Japan. It's one of the reasons (along with the kidnapping of various B-list actors) that Japan and NK don't get along.
Also, Japan has a severe allergy to nuclear arsenals. Something to do with them being the only country ever to get hit by them. They're incredibly unlikely to ever go nuclear.
DarthDiggler wrote:Encourage Japan to go nuclear. Next move the forces stationed in South Korea to Taiwan. Both of those moves are designed to get China's attention.
Why is provoking China a good thing?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Laughing Man wrote:
Also, Japan has a severe allergy to nuclear arsenals. Something to do with them being the only country ever to get hit by them. They're incredibly unlikely to ever go nuclear.
Asherian Command wrote:This looks bad D:. What do you guys think of this, do you think we will get involved in this struggle?
If it ever comes to war, I could definitely see the US playing a direct supplementary role to the Republic of Korea's army, and barring any doomsday worst case scenarios, thats it. All of my Army buds that had the pleasure(or displeasure) of being stationed in Korea speak with nothing but awe and respect for ROK soldiers. Those dudes are disciplined, well trained and well equipped, backed by a patriotic population where all but the invalids and females have military training. There seems to be a perception in the US that the troops we have there are holding the line at the DMZ and if not for them, the North Koreans would swoop down and take over the poor defenseless South Koreans. We've been slowly drawing our troops to other hotspots locales because the ROK military is easily one of the top 10 to 15 in the world. Let them fight it, support them with some air power and some Spec Ops and game over North Korea.
I'm confused about something. People keep stating that their will be a lot of casualties if the conflict is escalated to a full blown war. Casualties? In a war? I don't know, sound pretty far fetched.
If you look at Olympia's post you can see why casualties being mentioned is a rather important issue. Just because they are a by-product of war doesn't mean they should be disregarded as 'Inevitable'.
Nonsense. The US will just make the "Angry American" face, and North Korea will get so scared it'll crap itself and run into it's own Claymore - or Gaymore
Medium of Death wrote:If you look at Olympia's post you can see why casualties being mentioned is a rather important issue. Just because they are a by-product of war doesn't mean they should be disregarded as 'Inevitable'.
When are casualties not important? When you say there will be a war and that there are going to be casualties you might as well be saying that water is wet. Hell, creating those casualties will be one of the aims of a war (not on our side, we probably won't bomb Seoul), not a deterrent.
Ahtman wrote:I'm confused about something. People keep stating that their will be a lot of casualties if the conflict is escalated to a full blown war. Casualties? In a war? I don't know, sound pretty far fetched.
Medium of Death wrote:If you look at Olympia's post you can see why casualties being mentioned is a rather important issue. Just because they are a by-product of war doesn't mean they should be disregarded as 'Inevitable'.
Ahtman wrote:When are casualties not important? When you say there will be a war and that there are going to be casualties you might as well be saying that water is wet. Hell, creating those casualties will be one of the aims of a war (not on our side, we probably won't bomb Seoul), not a deterrent.
I think I must have mis-interpreted your initial comment. I thought you were being flippant about casualties, rather than pointing out people stating the bleeding obvious. My mistake.
Having been stationed in South Korea myself, their troops are no slouches. The are trained and they actually require every male of 18 years or older that can not pay the release fee are obligatorily made to serve 2 or 3 years (I forget exactly).
It kind of reminds of that scene from 300 where the Spartans meet up with the Arcadians and Leonidas points out that he's brought more warriors then his Arcadian comrades.
N. Korea has the cannons and the range to reduce a good amount of S. Korea to rubble. Seoul would be razed to it's foundation and it won't be pretty.
There will be countless lives lost if N. Korea were to open up first...it would be near genocide numbers in the death column.
What I find interesting is that everyone (not necessarily the above poster) seems to assume that the South Korean military culture could not possibly be reflected in North Korea.
I know there is research which states that democracies tend to field more effective soldiers, but it generally ignores the fact that democracies also tend to field a professional military, or be small nations with conscription cultures and a perceived threat.
No, I'm clearly stating my basis on the fact that N. Korea doesn't feed it's people and that once the main force is wiped out or taken as P.O.W.'s there isn't anything to fall back on. The S. Korean on the other hand, have males with training and the supplies to take up arms if they need to.
So does North Korea. Well, not supplies, but definitely people with military training that aren't active soldiers: the 3.5 million militiamen I referred to before.
All of whom are armed in some fashion, whereas South Korean civilians are not.
CrashUSAR wrote:If North Korea wants to try and shell Seoul, we can open up from a greater distance and silence that artiller, as can the South Koreans.
Not fast enough to avert massive civilian casualties.
Almost every post-dated study of Kosovo and Desert Storm indicate that air power isn't rapidly effective against defensive positions.
The way things are going, the war will start on North Korean terms, meaning that Seoul is screwed either way. In any case, we have enough airpower in place to at least keep the gunners heads down until ground troops can overrun the position.
If it ever comes to war, I could definitely see the US playing a direct supplementary role to the Republic of Korea's army, and barring any doomsday worst case scenarios, thats it. All of my Army buds that had the pleasure(or displeasure) of being stationed in Korea speak with nothing but awe and respect for ROK soldiers. Those dudes are disciplined, well trained and well equipped, backed by a patriotic population where all but the invalids and females have military training. There seems to be a perception in the US that the troops we have there are holding the line at the DMZ and if not for them, the North Koreans would swoop down and take over the poor defenseless South Koreans. We've been slowly drawing our troops to other hotspots locales because the ROK military is easily one of the top 10 to 15 in the world. Let them fight it, support them with some air power and some Spec Ops and game over North Korea.
What this man said.
What I find interesting is that everyone (not necessarily the above poster) seems to assume that the South Korean military culture could not possibly be reflected in North Korea.
I know there is research which states that democracies tend to field more effective soldiers, but it generally ignores the fact that democracies also tend to field a professional military, or be small nations with conscription cultures and a perceived threat.
Well for one thing S. Korea uses MODERN (American) technology, as opposed to outdated scrapheaps and rustbuckets from 20-30 years ago. Another thing is that the South is modeled after the American military, has taken part in numerous conflicts since the Korean War, and is, in general, better positioned to engage in a modern conflict than the North. Contrast to the North that hasn't had a military engagement of any importance in 50 years, and is basically trained and equipped along the lines of re-fighting the Korean war all over again, not taking into account the 50 or so years of progress mankind has had in the art of killing eachother.
So does North Korea. Well, not supplies, but definitely people with military training that aren't active soldiers: the 3.5 million militiamen I referred to before.
All of whom are armed in some fashion, whereas South Korean civilians are not.
Do you really think the 3.5 million militiamen are going to grab their guns and shoot their cousins from across the DMZ when they are being offered free food, medical attention, and the right to do whatever they want with their lives? I doubt that...
chaos0xomega wrote:
The way things are going, the war will start on North Korean terms, meaning that Seoul is screwed either way. In any case, we have enough airpower in place to at least keep the gunners heads down until ground troops can overrun the position.
No, we don't. If you have access to Jstore I can provide citations. If not, you're out of luck.
chaos0xomega wrote:
Well for one thing S. Korea uses MODERN (American) technology, as opposed to outdated scrapheaps and rustbuckets from 20-30 years ago.
That has nothing to do with military culture.
chaos0xomega wrote:
Another thing is that the South is modeled after the American military, has taken part in numerous conflicts since the Korean War, and is, in general, better positioned to engage in a modern conflict than the North.
Again, not a cultural thing.
You're talking about experience, I'm talking about determination and commitment to a military goal or ethos. They are very different things.
chaos0xomega wrote:
Contrast to the North that hasn't had a military engagement of any importance in 50 years, and is basically trained and equipped along the lines of re-fighting the Korean war all over again, not taking into account the 50 or so years of progress mankind has had in the art of killing eachother.
Interestingly enough, deposing the North Korean regime would be very much akin to re-fighting the Korean war. Air power is more significant now, but it isn't a game breaker.
chaos0xomega wrote:
Do you really think the 3.5 million militiamen are going to grab their guns and shoot their cousins from across the DMZ when they are being offered free food, medical attention, and the right to do whatever they want with their lives? I doubt that...
Have you not paid attention to Iraq or Afghanistan at all?
I mean, honestly dude, there were large bodies of the SK population that actively resisted the transition to democracy when their own government realized it. What do you think follows from a foreign instigation that movement?
What I find interesting is that everyone (not necessarily the above poster) seems to assume that the South Korean military culture could not possibly be reflected in North Korea.
There are numerous studies of relative trustworthiness that suggest that the average height in the DPRK is approximately 3 inches shorter than that of the ROK. The implications are obvious, but it should, if nothing else, show just how DIFFERENT life is on either side of the DMZ.
The idea that the people on both sides should be similar is a perfectly fine starting point. It makes perfect sense. But then when the actual facts are presented, it becomes clear that despite a shared geneology and history, these are two populations that have been made as different as human effort can make them.
I'd also pass on my dad's impression of the ROK soldiers he saw in Vietnam, which is to say that he was fairly impressed by how organized, disciplined and physically LARGE they were. In short, he described them as being big, sturdy professional soldiers. Not that this changes anything, it's just that all the anecdotal references I see to ROK troops is to praise them as soldiers. It seems to me that the ROK is a nation with a military that's above the average for what a nation of its size and wealth will normally produce. This is not much of a surprise, given that they've technically been at war for the last 55-ish years.
All of whom are armed in some fashion, whereas South Korean civilians are not.
I'd be VERY suprised if the DPRK has 3.5 million armed civillians walking around every day. Stalinist regimes don't typically do well with an armed populace.
No, we don't. If you have access to Jstore I can provide citations.
We just moved a carrier into the region. A carrier air wing can keep a lot of heads down. If things were going to come to blows, I think we'd have a lot more over there before it did.
Plus, let's not forget, we've already seen B2s fly bombing raids from Missouri against Afghanistan, and back. The US is really, really good at projecting force.
I realize you've got citations, but I'd point out two things that we consistently seem to get wrong:
1) How easy it will be to win things militarily.
2) How hard it will be to manage things after victory.
There were predictions of 5000+ US casualties if we attempted an invasion of Baghdad. Nothing even REMOTELY like that occurred.
And then, after trying to keep the peace for 7 years, only then did we start to see anything approaching those thousands of casualties.
As I was saying in the other Korea thread, I don't think it's possible to overstate how good the US is at large scale military action, and how confused we are by virtually everything else.
I mean, honestly dude, there were large bodies of the SK population that actively resisted the transition to democracy when their own government realized it. What do you think follows from a foreign instigation that movement?
There's simply no comparison. Iraq has large swathes of repressed and militarized population, along with a very clannish, regional mentality, all of which adds up to insurgency.
By comparison, the ROK is a modern industrialized nation, full of people with far too much to lose, and that's really what it comes down to in the end. People fight for their clan, or if they have nothing left to lose. The ROK has neither of those pressures, even if they do have a strange tradition of having huge, colorful brawls with riot police.
In 1951/2? when the Chinese Army counterattacked, the Allies were simply overwhelmed by numbers. Despite the better kit.
Even if a Coalition was to invade and successfully carry out regime change there is justy going to be another drain on resources with yet another unpopular occupation.
This time the neighbours won't be a bunch of generally benign chaps mostly chuffed you got rid of a disruptive megalomaniac from the region, it will be China.
I doubt if they will be too pleased with the prospect.
I doubt if the USA will won't to risk the potential friction such an occupation would cause with a major ecomomy.
The Chinese militarily are also not as comparitively obsolete as they were 50 odd years ago.
Dogma is correct. As "Shock and Awe" proved in Iraq, there will be the capacity to overwhelm NK comms and infrastructure with airstrikes.
but of itself such tactics don't cause capitulation.
The internal politics of NK is also totally different to the split factions and tribes and previously suppressed opposition to Saddam's regime.
You have a population that will be angry with the allies for the isolation that NK has endured. They won't blame Kim Jong-il for that. They won't be welcoming an invading force with open arms.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
There were predictions of 5000+ US casualties if we attempted an invasion of Baghdad. Nothing even REMOTELY like that occurred.
It was anticipated there would be street fighting
and Bhagdad is big!
Fortunately that never materialised. Partly because for reasons I outlined above.
It is likely to be different againt the NK
It might be like Iraq, but the Pentagon are not stupid and would not base a campaign on the premise that the NK will roll over.
Somehow I doubt even China wants to be associated with North Korea.
That's whats strange, they totally do. There's some strange death pact that all the Communist states all seem to cling to. It's like if they admit one of the others is crazy, it might be a little like admitting they're crazy too. And that's really what Communism is all about: keeping the lie going.
No, we don't. If you have access to Jstore I can provide citations. If not, you're out of luck.
Between the 2 F-16 squadrons and the A-10 squadron based out of S. Korea, the Carrier sitting off the peninsula at this very moment, plus the S. Korean Air Force, plus what we can rustle up from Okinawa, plus the bombers we have stationed at Andersen Air Force Base, plus any of the other assets that will be diverted over, I think we have more than enough to make life difficult for the artillery crews gunning for seoul. We might not have enough to do that plus everything else we need to do at the same time, but we do have enough to accomplish that one task alone.
That has nothing to do with military culture.
While I see that I missed your original point, I would disagree on this. Technology and experience has a large part in shaping military culture. Its not the only influence, mind you, but it is a significant one nonetheless.
Interestingly enough, deposing the North Korean regime would be very much akin to re-fighting the Korean war. Air power is more significant now, but it isn't a game breaker.
I'm not 100% on that. The weapons being used and the capabilities being brought to the battlefield have changed, a lot. Airpower alone will play a significantly different role this time around (largely due to the fact that this time around the Air Force will actually have the right tools for the job). Not only that, but one of the main elements that shaped the korean war was the lack of any sort of in-place defensive capability on the South at the start of the war. The US forces there were essentially a backwater garrison of no significance, and the South Korean military itself was almost non-existent. The other real difference is that the North probably won't have the same support this time around. The Chinese might help them out a bit, maybe, but I doubt they will be seeing much from the Russians at all.
Have you not paid attention to Iraq or Afghanistan at all?
I mean, honestly dude, there were large bodies of the SK population that actively resisted the transition to democracy when their own government realized it. What do you think follows from a foreign instigation that movement?
Iraq and Afghanistan both have active insurgencies, but just because it happened there does not mean it will happen in N. Korea. Look at what happened in the defeated Axis powers following WW2. There was very little resistance against the occupying forces. Granted, just because that happened there doesn't mean it will happen in N. Korea either, but it could go either way. I'm more inclined to believe that aside from a hardcore minority who have been very effectively brainwashed by the current regime, most Northerners would welcome liberation... or at the very least a steady supply of food.
In 1951/2? when the Chinese Army counterattacked, the Allies were simply overwhelmed by numbers. Despite the better kit.
Yeah, BUT...
This was not a simple situation of numbers. It was a situation where the numbers were coming from a place the allies were not allowed to attack, and for a time, weren't really even allowed to admit the enemy were coming from.
It's VERY easy to win a war if the enemy isn't allowed to attack you until you're ready.
It's funny how often the US is involved in wars where it's "not allowed" to do things, huh? I wish our enemies had rules.
Even if a Coalition was to invade and successfully carry out regime change there is justy going to be another drain on resources with yet another unpopular occupation.
And just to be clear, that's TOTALLY my point. we should NOT attack the DPRK. TOTAL last resort. HORRIBLE idea.
But the reason it's a horrible idea is the occupation, etc. It's not the fighting. We do fighting wonderfully.
It is likely to be different againt the NK
I think it would be much easier, both in the invasion and in the occupation.
That has beeen disappointing Had hoped, as you suggest Melissa, that the Chinese would have distanced themselves more. While not outright supporting NK they could have gone further and condemned the shelling, but failed to do so.
Seems like they are reluctant out of some sort of loyalty, to criticise the regime and put more pressure on them to behave. If anyone is going to be able to influence NK it would surely be China?
How would invasion and occupation be easier Phyraxsis? I understand your points and the statements about the Chinese counter. (Though the point about numbers is not invalidated imho)
The population will be more united in favour of the current regime and more determined to resist. Much of the drive to Baghdad was through terrain suited to a mechanised army. Not certain, but don't think the geography of North Korea is so conduicive?
chaos0xomega wrote:
Between the 2 F-16 squadrons and the A-10 squadron based out of S. Korea, the Carrier sitting off the peninsula at this very moment, plus the S. Korean Air Force, plus what we can rustle up from Okinawa, plus the bombers we have stationed at Andersen Air Force Base, plus any of the other assets that will be diverted over, I think we have more than enough to make life difficult for the artillery crews gunning for seoul. We might not have enough to do that plus everything else we need to do at the same time, but we do have enough to accomplish that one task alone.
Based on the effectiveness of the Gulf War air campaign, and the Kosovo air campaign, no, that's not enough.
Keep in mind, mere suppression isn't enough in this case.
chaos0xomega wrote:
While I see that I missed your original point, I would disagree on this. Technology and experience has a large part in shaping military culture. Its not the only influence, mind you, but it is a significant one nonetheless.
Insofar as the willingness to resist is concerned I disagree entirely. Note the Zulu campaign against the British.
chaos0xomega wrote:
The weapons being used and the capabilities being brought to the battlefield have changed, a lot.
Not as much as you might think. At the end of the day planes still drop bombs.
chaos0xomega wrote:
The US forces there were essentially a backwater garrison of no significance, and the South Korean military itself was almost non-existent. The other real difference is that the North probably won't have the same support this time around. The Chinese might help them out a bit, maybe, but I doubt they will be seeing much from the Russians at all.
Sure, but you're still talking about an aggressive war against a defending force. Regardless of aid, the parameters are essentially the same when only considering combat.
The politics are different, of course.
chaos0xomega wrote:
Iraq and Afghanistan both have active insurgencies, but just because it happened there does not mean it will happen in N. Korea. Look at what happened in the defeated Axis powers following WW2.
Sure, but again, I'm not arguing from certainty, you are. All I need to prove is that it could happen.
chaos0xomega wrote:
I'm more inclined to believe that aside from a hardcore minority who have been very effectively brainwashed by the current regime, most Northerners would welcome liberation... or at the very least a steady supply of food.
Why? Liberty isn't some sort of intrinsic good that transcends culture. If it were, then everyone in Saudi Arabia would be all about women's rights, and everyone in the US would rave about how terrible it was that homosexuals can't marry.
chaos0xomega: While those numbers are impressive, you have to remember that one of the best defenses against bombs and artillery is just good old fashioned earthen bunkers, that North Korea has no doubt spent the last 50 years building on their side of the border recognizing that if it ever came to a shooting war their air force was screwed. As dogma said, in Kosovo we bombed things to rubble, and we were certain nothing was alive....we were wrong. You can't destroy everything from the air, and you can't move an army through a gigantic minefield very easily either. Seoul is screwed, no matter what. Besides, those A-10s and F-16s you mentioned will likely be focusing on more important things than the artillery....the A-10s will be doing what they do best and taking out the North Korean tank columns, while the F-16s will be taking out fuel and ammo depots in order to slow down the offensive. Seoul is a write off.
ALso, as far as insurgency goes, you have to consider the sheer level of isolation North Korea's been under. In Iraq, the soldier in Sadaam's army had either fought the Americans before, or had heard stories about the last Gulf War. They knew that they would be taken in and fed well if they surrendered quickly, no doubt part of the reason why they did so in such huge numbers. NOrth Korea, is a nother story.
The population there has been raised from birth to believe America is evil, and that capitalism is evil, and that all who oppose the Glorious Leader is evil. They've been brainwashed since birth to be thankful for what Kim Jong-Il does for them, and they no doubt have a fanatical loyalty to him personally. They will fight harder. THink of them like Japan in WWII, they were ready to fight to the last man woman and child, even if all they had was a parent with a bamboo stick, and a child with a bomb strapped to her chest. The North Koreans will fight like that, and it will be hard to break. NOt to mention, they do have weapons of mass destruction....those will be unleashed once the fact that they're going to lose is obvious. WHich means, what will most likely happen is that we won't march on Pyonyang, we'll simply drive them back over the border, and keep them their. No need to risk getting nuked.
Precisely Chris
They have been told that the reason why things get gakky in NK is because of bad ol' Uncle Sam
There is not a lot of regime opposition afaik There is not a lot of comms from the outside which may feed an underground movement with images of a better lifestyle.
How would invasion and occupation be easier Phyraxsis?
I think the DPRK is less military capable than Iraq was, and I think their population would be more cooperative post occupation.
Obviously I could be wrong, and I hope we never have to find out, but that's just my prediction.
Seoul is a write off.
I don't get why people keep saying this. It's in range of their long range artillery, sure... But if you want to attack with artillery, you have to fire it. It sits there and it fires. We have systems that will counter-battery it off the map. We deploy a handfull of MLRS over there, which we probably already have, and that's half of the job done.
Not to mention, this is artillery. It's bad to get hit with artillery, but it generally takes a sustained pounding to really mess up a city, and it often takes a lot more than just artillery, it takes sustained bombing etc.
I'm sure they'd be able to kill some people in Seoul, but it's not a "write off." They can't even hit most of the city from their current positions, so even if they had a month to sit and shell, half the city would be fine.
Again, we're talking about BIG artillery pieces that take a long time to set up, need a lot of space and support. It's not going down into hardened bunkers, and back out and firing and back and forth like a Tau Battlesuit. It needs to set up and shoot, and it gets to do that for about 30 minutes before it's permanently on fire.
I'd also point out that if it's happening in some sort of pre-emptive scenario, then it's happening from the DPRK, from a fairly narrow band that we no doubt are staring at with spy satellites. It's simply not that hard to take out large artillery pieces that are in the open, in a very small geopgrahic area, that you're looking at already. And, in addition, they're not doing all that much damage for the brief period they do get to fire.
They've been brainwashed since birth to be thankful for what Kim Jong-Il does for them, and they no doubt have a fanatical loyalty to him personally.
They have, but I don't think it's working as well as you're suggesting. Who knows, you could CERTAINLY be right. But my feeling is that they're not nearly as loyal as you suggest.
The Japanese, for example, were a pretty "free" people. They were fanatically loyal by choice. Lots of them left, joined the US, and fought bravely for us (or got put in internment camps). The fact that they had that choice tells you something. The DPRK, by comparison, is like a massive prison. You don't have to do that if people are loyal. Quite the opposite.
There's no question the brainwashing is pervasive. But like I said, if it was working, who needs the walls?
dogma wrote:
No, we don't. If you have access to Jstore I can provide citations. If not, you're out of luck.
USAF Fighter Assets within striking distance of N. Korea right at this moment.
5 F-16 squadrons, two of which specialize in SEAD operations.
1 A-10 squadron
2 F-15 squadrons
Assets that can be there within 1 day from other PACAF bases.
1 F-16 Squadron
1 F-15 Squadron
3 F-22 Squadrons
US Navy/Marine Corp Assets within striking distance of N. Korea right at this moment.
5 F-18 squadrons
That is just our fighter assets, 18 squadrons. Not our bombers. Not our electronic warfare capabilities. Not our ship based bombardment capabilities. Nor any of S. Korea's capabilities.
I spent four and a half years on the tip of the spear. I'm well aware of our capabilities to devestate the N. Korean military with our air and naval forces. Tell me though, if roughly 250 Fighter Aircraft aren't enough, then how many are?
Well, hey, silver lining: If we do end up fighting them, then at least the A-10 gets to fight again. I just plain feel sorry for an A-10 that doesn't get to blow things up.
The best thing America can do is demonstrate its willingness to back up South Korea and NOT get into a war with North Korea. Can America funnel war funds into ANOTHER war at this point when we have a Democrat controlled government and a populace not in love with any ideas of war?
Phryxis wrote:Well, hey, silver lining: If we do end up fighting them, then at least the A-10 gets to fight again. I just plain feel sorry for an A-10 that doesn't get to blow things up.
The A-10 has been blowing things up for the last 9 years. Not sure were you are getting your info from.
Following the discussion with interest. Just a little detail that I found out:
North Korea hides its M-1978 Koksan 170mm Artillery Guns behind 5 meter high concrete/earth fortifications. So they're not really standing "out in the open". I'm no expert on the accuracy of modern laser-guided bombs, but I guess depending on conditions it's not perfectly easy to destroy a battery of 36 of these monsters. And there are more than just a few batteries.
Witzkatz wrote:Following the discussion with interest. Just a little detail that I found out:
North Korea hides its M-1978 Koksan 170mm Artillery Guns behind 5 meter high concrete/earth fortifications. So they're not really standing "out in the open". I'm no expert on the accuracy of modern laser-guided bombs, but I guess depending on conditions it's not perfectly easy to destroy a battery of 36 of these monsters. And there are more than just a few batteries.
That is the pickle. We have bombs that can penetrate that. What the issue is, is finding everyone of those and actually getting a bomb on target. A large majority of them would probably be destroyed early on, but not before they can do their damage.
N. Korea will be able to reign fire down with relative impunity, but large scale troop movements will be extremely difficult. It'll take us a day, maybe two, to neutralize their air defence capabilities. From that point on, it's a turkey shoot as they try to move their forces through the mountain passes.
What scares me the most, is the SOF that N. Korea can employ. They have the largest Special Ops force in the world, and they'll be infiltrating the South. Digging those bastards out is going to be the hardest part of the whole affair.
Bunker busting Laser Guided Bombs should do the trick?
The problem is worst if the units are mobile, like the Scuds were in Desert Storm. If they are behind fortifications it makes hitting them easier in some ways i would have thought.
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:That has beeen disappointing Had hoped, as you suggest Melissa, that the Chinese would have distanced themselves more. While not outright supporting NK they could have gone further and condemned the shelling, but failed to do so.
Seems like they are reluctant out of some sort of loyalty, to criticise the regime and put more pressure on them to behave. If anyone is going to be able to influence NK it would surely be China?
In what could be a crucial development, state-owned newspapers in China have blamed North Korea for this week's attack; one even editorialised that North Korea could be a country without a future.
Sounds like a slow news cycle and a bunch of pre-negotiation sabre rattling to me.
ChrisWWII wrote:chaos0xomega: While those numbers are impressive, you have to remember that one of the best defenses against bombs and artillery is just good old fashioned earthen bunkers, that North Korea has no doubt spent the last 50 years building on their side of the border recognizing that if it ever came to a shooting war their air force was screwed. As dogma said, in Kosovo we bombed things to rubble, and we were certain nothing was alive....we were wrong. You can't destroy everything from the air, and you can't move an army through a gigantic minefield very easily either. Seoul is screwed, no matter what. Besides, those A-10s and F-16s you mentioned will likely be focusing on more important things than the artillery....the A-10s will be doing what they do best and taking out the North Korean tank columns, while the F-16s will be taking out fuel and ammo depots in order to slow down the offensive. Seoul is a write off.
While things survived the bombardment given them in both Kosovo and Iraq, you cannot say that the bombardment wasn't effective. The sites in question were for the most part neutralized. If the crews survive, thats fine, as long as the guns are rendered inoperable, then we have, in effect, won. Besides that, Kosovo is a very poor example of the capabilities of airpower. The units deployed were severely limited in what they were allowed to do and the types of munitions they were allowed to drop. Using small precision warheads to take out hard targets is a recipe for failure. In Gulf War 1 the Air Force and Navy (mostly the Air Force) had very much success taking out hard targets when they were allowed to use bunker busters, and the technology used has improved since then (or more accurately, the size of the bunker busting warheads has increased). In fact, during Gulf War 1, many of the bunker busters used were effectively 'kitbashed' from older munitions that were on-hand in about a month, and proved to be more effective than anyone could have guessed.
The population there has been raised from birth to believe America is evil, and that capitalism is evil, and that all who oppose the Glorious Leader is evil. They've been brainwashed since birth to be thankful for what Kim Jong-Il does for them, and they no doubt have a fanatical loyalty to him personally. They will fight harder. THink of them like Japan in WWII, they were ready to fight to the last man woman and child, even if all they had was a parent with a bamboo stick, and a child with a bomb strapped to her chest. The North Koreans will fight like that, and it will be hard to break. NOt to mention, they do have weapons of mass destruction....those will be unleashed once the fact that they're going to lose is obvious. WHich means, what will most likely happen is that we won't march on Pyonyang, we'll simply drive them back over the border, and keep them their. No need to risk getting nuked.
Interestingly enough, the population is taught that North Korea effectively conquered the world during the Korean War, and that the American's pay tribute to North Korea, hence the food aid they receive. The perception of America being evil is not necessarily true, in this case, they may view America as being cowardly and weak, meaning that surrendering to the Americans would equate to living like a king, or something to that effect, but who can really say until it happens? Again, as much as my Human Performance Modeling professor would like to try to convince me otherwise, humans are a variable that can never be accounted for in any capacity, we simply don't know what happens until it happens, both you and I can only guess.
Again, we're talking about BIG artillery pieces that take a long time to set up, need a lot of space and support. It's not going down into hardened bunkers, and back out and firing and back and forth like a Tau Battlesuit. It needs to set up and shoot, and it gets to do that for about 30 minutes before it's permanently on fire.
The artillery is already in place, it just needs to be ordered to fire. My guess is that the arty is probably housed in purpose-built defensive positions (hardened bunkers, etc.), so they can in fact fire from a safe location... just that the location isn't really all that safe.
Well, hey, silver lining: If we do end up fighting them, then at least the A-10 gets to fight again. I just plain feel sorry for an A-10 that doesn't get to blow things up.
Agreed, but A-10s have been working wonders in Iraq and Afghanistan... not blowing up tanks... but people are just as good, right?
North Korea hides its M-1978 Koksan 170mm Artillery Guns behind 5 meter high concrete/earth fortifications. So they're not really standing "out in the open". I'm no expert on the accuracy of modern laser-guided bombs, but I guess depending on conditions it's not perfectly easy to destroy a battery of 36 of these monsters. And there are more than just a few batteries.
We have *unclassified* warheads designed to penetrate over 6m of reinforced concrete, and several more that aren't designed to penetrate concrete at all, instead they do this cool thing where they create a nice amount of overpressure in the area of the detonation and literally crush the bunker in on itself.
What scares me the most, is the SOF that N. Korea can employ. They have the largest Special Ops force in the world, and they'll be infiltrating the South. Digging those bastards out is going to be the hardest part of the whole affair.
They have been infiltrating the south since the 50s and the South has been catching them since the 50s. Not going to say they aren't hard as nails and scary as gak, but they aren't the main issue in a hot conflict. Although, I am curious about the North SF units. From what little reading I could find on them, they seem to be 'regular army' units in size but with guerilla warfare training. Makes me wonder if they are at the same caliber as American SF units, or if they are just 'professional guerillas'.
djones520 wrote:
That is just our fighter assets, 18 squadrons. Not our bombers. Not our electronic warfare capabilities. Not our ship based bombardment capabilities. Nor any of S. Korea's capabilities.
Why are you talking about e-war? Do e-war assets destroy artillery pieces?
djones520 wrote:
I spent four and a half years on the tip of the spear. I'm well aware of our capabilities to devestate the N. Korean military with our air and naval forces. Tell me though, if roughly 250 Fighter Aircraft aren't enough, then how many are?
No, I don't think you are.
Again, given 4 weeks the US Air Force and Navy were able to destroy 40% of Iraqi ground vehicles during Desert Storm. That leaves at least 60%, assuming similar rates of success, that are firing on Seoul.
This operation included many aircraft, a classified number insofar as I know, but likely more than 250 given the rate of strikes.
Regardless, my point is that one cannot assume you will succeed given confidence derived from events that you have, or really have not, examined.
We may be able to kill everyone in the DPRK military, or we may not. But the point is that simply killing everyone with a gun in North Korea is not consistent with our objective.
This is why we have officers, and enlisted men, and why we have political elites, and plebes.
Thanks for the heads up Avant
Hope it has some effect
was interesting to see that the Defense Minister resigned for not calling a retaliatory airstrike.
Would have thought it the right decision so as not to escalate hostilities.
Again, given 4 weeks the US Air Force and Navy were able to destroy 40% of Iraqi ground vehicles during Desert Storm. That leaves at least 60%, assuming similar rates of success, that are firing on Seoul.
You are making two assumptions that are illogical and don't sit right with me (or others who know a thing or two about the way things work).
1. You assume that the remaining 60% was targeted to begin with. The point of airpower wasn't to destroy the entire Iraqi military. There was a reason why we sent ground forces in. The 40% that was destroyed was destroyed because they represented front line units that were dug in in defensive positions at key points that Coalition ground forces had to enter by. In any case, most of the remaining 60% retreated or surrendered, more than a few units surrendered because they saw B-52s flying overhead (that isn't a joke, btw, I have read of at least 3 seperate instances where Iraqi commanders surrendered entire formations (in one case, the size of an entire division) to advancing ground troops, their stated reason was that they didn't fear the ground forces, they feared the B-52(s) that they saw fly overhead in advance of them.
2. You assume that 100% of the enemies military forces are dedicated for the explicit purpose of targeting Seoul. They aren't. The discussion we are having here is about 'Saving Seoul' (I'm copywriting and trademarking that, forthcoming novel with movie rights!). You don't need to destroy 100% of the N. Korean military to stop the bombardment. I would be impressed if you had to destroy more than 5% of the N. Korean military to stop the bombardment.
EDIT: IIRC, from the GAO docs that I have read, the success rate of American strike missions in GW1 was 95%+ which indicates to me that not much outside of that 40% was targeted to begin with...
Thanks for the heads up Avant
Hope it has some effect
was interesting to see that the Defense Minister resigned for not calling a retaliatory airstrike.
Would have thought it the right decision so as not to escalate hostilities.
I'm not up to date with my Peninsular politics, but it seems to me that Lee (South Korean president) is a bit of a hawk. The shelling would have been a perfect/justified cassus belli for him. By not retaliating, Lee might feel that he missed his opportunity.
chaos0xomega wrote:
You are making two assumptions that are illogical and don't sit right with me (or others who know a thing or two about the way things work).
1. You assume that the remaining 60% was targeted to begin with.
No, I made no statement as regards what or was not targeted.
If you would like me to do so, then ask me to do so.
chaos0xomega wrote:
2. You assume that 100% of the enemies military forces are dedicated for the explicit purpose of targeting Seoul.
Again, no. I'm translating a given success rate to another endeavor. This is also open to criticism, but not the sort of criticism you are leveling.
chaos0xomega wrote:
IIRC, from the GAO docs that I have read, the success rate of American strike missions in GW1 was 95%+ which indicates to me that not much outside of that 40% was targeted to begin with...
According to my sources it was even less than 40%; meaning that 40% destruction was reached via repeated strikes. This is supported by the fact that US ground forces had to open fire.
Why would you risk death of any sort if you didn't have to do so?
Phryxis wrote:
The Japanese, for example, were a pretty "free" people. They were fanatically loyal by choice. Lots of them left, joined the US, and fought bravely for us (or got put in internment camps). The fact that they had that choice tells you something. The DPRK, by comparison, is like a massive prison. You don't have to do that if people are loyal. Quite the opposite.
Even though they were a 'free' people, a great many of them had gone through the same brainwashing since birth that the North Koreans had gone through, and you have to understand, what finally broke the spirit of the Japanese people in the end wasn't the nukes set off in Hirsoshima and Nagasaki, but just the words of their Emperor saying that they had to give up the fight. That was what broke their morale, nothing we did ever came close. MOre importantly, you're flat out wrong about the lots of them left part....sure lots of Japanese emigrated before the war, but that was less out of disloyalty to their country, and more about finidng a good paying job. Once the war was on, very few Japanese surrendered, hell as we saw on Okinawa, even the civillians would rather die than be captured by Allied forces....the NOrth Koreans will be the same, and they'll die fighting.
You also have to note that North Korea's defensese are less focused on keeping their people in, and more on keeping anyone else out. There is no stream of refugees fleeing to the West like we saw with Cuba and East Berlin. The people stay in place, simply because they have been forced to think that that is the only purpouse they have in life. Seriously, if you've been thought since birth that the greatest thing you can give the man who gave you everything is to work in a factory for 15 hours a day....you'd do it, and the thought of escape would not enter your mind. It would just be inconceivable.
I think the DPRK is less military capable than Iraq was, and I think their population would be more cooperative post occupation.
No, the NOrth Koreans are likely more capable than the Iraqi's, if only in sheer numbers and fanaticism. NOrth Korean soldiers won't surrender in droves like the Iraqi's did, and we won't have the ease of just taking in thousands of prisoners with ease. They would fight long, hard, and would not give up until they were dead.
djones520 wrote:I spent four and a half years on the tip of the spear. I'm well aware of our capabilities to devestate the N. Korean military with our air and naval forces. Tell me though, if roughly 250 Fighter Aircraft aren't enough, then how many are?
Just because you're a veteran does not magically make you a god of understanding as far as the military goes, depending on what you did, you would have a greater understanding of certain parts of military operations, but not all of them, and the fact is that 250 fighters will not annhilate the North Korean military. As dogma has pointed out, it took much more aircraft months to grind down the Iraqi's, and the Iraqis were hiding behind sand bunkers and the like, not concrete bunkers. It will take time to find and destroy these sites one by one, the fixed ones will be gone relatively quickly, but the Katyusha batteries? Those will be hard as hell to take out, and they'll be doing a lot of damage.
RAND Corporation Briefing: "Disjointed War: Military Operations in Kosovo, 1999" wrote:Lethality: Only 52 (<5%) Serbian combat systems destroyed during the 78 day air campaign
--- 14 Tanks destroyed
--- 18 APCs destroyed
--- 20 Artillery/Mortars destroyed
That for me screams 'ineffective'. We barely scratched them at all. Now, I'm assuming you're right and that there were limitations on attack capability, but also a key problem was the fact that the Serbians were ready and waiting, and had emplaced their assets, just like the North Koreans.
Something tells me that north korea is like the annoying guy at the back of the class that has small man sindrome, and a shotgun. Sadly, their is no teacher to give him a detention.
Ledabot wrote:Something tells me that North Korea is like the annoying guy at the back of the class that has small man syndrome, and a shotgun. Sadly, their is no teacher to give him a detention.
Well I guess if we are going with that, China would be the teacher that could but is reluctant to. At the moment....
I honestly hope we stay neutral. We've got enough in the Philippines already. But apparently, that's not happening, as per we owe Uncle Sam favors cause he's still playing the WW2 card.
Anyone in the US Armed Forces? I might meet one of you anytime soon, with all the gak going down.
Undivided
you are located in the Eye of Terror warzone
Korea would be a vacation!
Still no more word of condemnation of the shelling from China but it is at least a positive move
Thanks for the link Medium.
Heard a similar report on the 1:00pm BBC headlines
Phryxis wrote:That's whats strange, they totally do. There's some strange death pact that all the Communist states all seem to cling to. It's like if they admit one of the others is crazy, it might be a little like admitting they're crazy too. And that's really what Communism is all about: keeping the lie going.
Not really. Well, maybe there's kind of something to that general principle, since China did protect N Korea, but since China's moved away from communism they've also been more willing to censure N Korea, so I don't think it's really much of an accurate description of the relationship as it stands today.
Really, China these days seems to be mostly committed to making sure there's no open conflict, because they really don't want millions of refugees crossing their southern border.
Phryxis wrote:I don't get why people keep saying this. It's in range of their long range artillery, sure... But if you want to attack with artillery, you have to fire it. It sits there and it fires. We have systems that will counter-battery it off the map. We deploy a handfull of MLRS over there, which we probably already have, and that's half of the job done.
It's an overstated position, but there's no denying there'd be a lot of casualties. And given there's almost no casualties from situation at current, and loads if we go to war... we accept the situation as is.
dogma wrote:
No, we don't. If you have access to Jstore I can provide citations. If not, you're out of luck.
USAF Fighter Assets within striking distance of N. Korea right at this moment.
5 F-16 squadrons, two of which specialize in SEAD operations.
1 A-10 squadron
2 F-15 squadrons
Assets that can be there within 1 day from other PACAF bases.
1 F-16 Squadron
1 F-15 Squadron
3 F-22 Squadrons
US Navy/Marine Corp Assets within striking distance of N. Korea right at this moment.
5 F-18 squadrons
That is just our fighter assets, 18 squadrons. Not our bombers. Not our electronic warfare capabilities. Not our ship based bombardment capabilities. Nor any of S. Korea's capabilities.
I spent four and a half years on the tip of the spear. I'm well aware of our capabilities to devestate the N. Korean military with our air and naval forces. Tell me though, if roughly 250 Fighter Aircraft aren't enough, then how many are?
Enough to save Seoul and avert massive civilian casualties stemming from direct shelling and chemical attacks primarily focused on civilian targets? It's less a matter of numbers and more a matter of response time. The capitol would be gone before the day out assets could arrive and the standing assets aren't enough (especially if the north acts first) to prevent a catastrophe. An air campaign could eventually effectively silence the guns, but whether they are capable of doing so before all targets within range of a very large, very concentrated battery of artillery (several thousand pieces) are destroyed is a big question. If they can't do that then they aren't doing much.
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Several thousand guns? thought it was 38?
In any case I doubt if even the NK regime are crazy enough to actually attack Seoul unprovoked. *pray*
Last I heard, artillery deployable within range of seoul within a very short amount of time (a few hours?) was 4000+ pieces of many different varieties. Of course info on this isn't really concrete for anyone. Thats about all the northern military has, a lot of men and a lot of artillery. The bulk of their forces straddle the DMZ.
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Several thousand guns? thought it was 38?
In any case I doubt if even the NK regime are crazy enough to actually attack Seoul unprovoked. *pray*
Thirty eight guns per reinforced concrete bunker, and I'd say that the North has a much more....Soviet style build. Lots of expendable cannon fodder, supported by massed tanks and artillery. It's their air force and Navy that are weak.
a great many of them had gone through the same brainwashing since birth that the North Koreans had gone through
I don't agree. I think Japan's nationalism and sense of duty were/are a lot more organic, natural and systemic. There's a big difference between a radio blaring garbage at you, and your own grandfather telling it to you.
MOre importantly, you're flat out wrong about the lots of them left part....
Before this turns into a nipponadoration thread, I'm not saying that they left cause they hated Japan, I'm saying that they had the OPTION to leave. And I said "lots" to convey the idea that this wasn't just a few people who snuck out, it was as many as wanted to leave were free to go. The point here is that the Japanese were free to leave and didn't, they fought doggedly for Japan. That's loyalty.
When you have to pen everyone in, and kill/torture/imprison anybody who tries to leave, it doesn't speak for a high level of loyalty.
You also have to note that North Korea's defensese are less focused on keeping their people in, and more on keeping anyone else out.
That's actually more true of Japan's history. The DPRK is very aggressively keeping their people in. There is no stream of refugees because they're good at it, and more aggressive about it than Cuba.
When Elian Gonzales fled Cuba, their government brought him home, gave him to his dad, and made a big cheer about it. In the DPRK, they probably would have tortured his dad to death and killed the kid. They're very aggressive about punishing family, it's an effective way to intimidate people.
According to my sources it was even less than 40%; meaning that 40% destruction was reached via repeated strikes. This is supported by the fact that US ground forces had to open fire.
Your statistics are measuring something different than mine. As I understand it, yours state airpower was responsible for destroying 40% of all enemy units. That is not the same as saying that airpower had a 95% success rate in strike missions. Both of them can be entirely true, as they are measures of different things. Yours measures total force impact, mine measures success rate.
dogma wrote:
Why would you risk death of any sort if you didn't have to do so?
You're asking the wrong person.
You also have to note that North Korea's defensese are less focused on keeping their people in, and more on keeping anyone else out. There is no stream of refugees fleeing to the West like we saw with Cuba and East Berlin. The people stay in place, simply because they have been forced to think that that is the only purpouse they have in life. Seriously, if you've been thought since birth that the greatest thing you can give the man who gave you everything is to work in a factory for 15 hours a day....you'd do it, and the thought of escape would not enter your mind. It would just be inconceivable.
Just because you're a veteran does not magically make you a god of understanding as far as the military goes, depending on what you did, you would have a greater understanding of certain parts of military operations, but not all of them, and the fact is that 250 fighters will not annhilate the North Korean military. As dogma has pointed out, it took much more aircraft months to grind down the Iraqi's, and the Iraqis were hiding behind sand bunkers and the like, not concrete bunkers. It will take time to find and destroy these sites one by one, the fixed ones will be gone relatively quickly, but the Katyusha batteries? Those will be hard as hell to take out, and they'll be doing a lot of damage.
1. We're (or at least I am) talking about airpower in regards to ending an artillery threat to one city. You don't NEED to annihilate the North Korean military, you need to annihilate a few key sites. The rest of it is mostly legwork.
2. I have megabytes upon megabytes of hardened reinforced concrete structures that the Iraqis were using in GW1. You want to tell me that they used sandbag bunkers again?
3. Katyushas are innacurate, and take a long time to reload. They also have the nasty sideeffect of leaving a nice smoketrail for you to follow.
That for me screams 'ineffective'. We barely scratched them at all. Now, I'm assuming you're right and that there were limitations on attack capability, but also a key problem was the fact that the Serbians were ready and waiting, and had emplaced their assets, just like the North Koreans.
And once again, unless I am mistaken, that doesn't give us a success rate, that gives total force impact. That could very well be (though I doubt it, mainly because I know better) a 100% success rate, if during the 78 days, coalition airpower was only tasked with destroying 14 tanks, 18 apcs, and 20 artillery pieces.
Enough to save Seoul and avert massive civilian casualties stemming from direct shelling and chemical attacks primarily focused on civilian targets? It's less a matter of numbers and more a matter of response time. The capitol would be gone before the day out assets could arrive and the standing assets aren't enough (especially if the north acts first) to prevent a catastrophe. An air campaign could eventually effectively silence the guns, but whether they are capable of doing so before all targets within range of a very large, very concentrated battery of artillery (several thousand pieces) are destroyed is a big question. If they can't do that then they aren't doing much.
I think this is the crux of the matter. Between the S. Koreans and US air assets on hand, I have no doubt that we have enough, but if the North decides to take first blood, it probably doesn't matter. Planes could get airborne pretty quick, but not quick enough to stop hundreds of shells from landing on Seoul. But if North Korea is pulling the trigger first, we have bigger problems. If certain rumors are to be believed, the North possesses hundreds of tunnels, very large tunnels, some big enough to drive armored units through, running right under the DMZ and into the rear areas. Supposedly some run right under the aribases in the area, and can be 'sapped' to destroy the airfields before anyone can do anything about it. I question how true this is, simply because I feel we would have countermined, etc. but if the tunnels are deep enough, we might not be able to find them (I mean, hell, look how many drug tunnels are believed to run across the US Mexico border, and then look how many we have actually found, pretty dismal success rate).
Last I heard, artillery deployable within range of seoul within a very short amount of time (a few hours?) was 4000+ pieces of many different varieties. Of course info on this isn't really concrete for anyone. Thats about all the northern military has, a lot of men and a lot of artillery. The bulk of their forces straddle the DMZ.
And the chances of them ALL being mobilized to destroy one city is nonexistant (unless Kim Jong Who has really gone totally insane).
Why would you risk death of any sort if you didn't have to do so?
You're asking the wrong person.
I think you are confusing being foolish and being in a dangerous situation. I doubt you would foolishly put yourself into stupidly dangerous situations, as opposed to having to be in dangerous situations in general. As someone who was the "sharp end of the spear" if given the option of having to go in against a fully powered force or one that has been whittled down by artillery and air support, which is the better option? People will die in combat, just the way it is, but that doesn't mean you resign oneself to making combat a war of attrition and just throw bodies at the problem, Zap Brannigan style. Every soldier's life is important and we should always try to minimize the losses. I also know that the US Military mindset isn't one of nonchalance, but of training and preparedness so I don't see how you can think it is braver/better/whatever to needlessly risk lives.
Why would you risk death of any sort if you didn't have to do so?
You're asking the wrong person.
I think you are confusing being foolish and being in a dangerous situation. I doubt you would foolishly put yourself into stupidly dangerous situations, as opposed to having to be in dangerous situations in general. As someone who was the "sharp end of the spear" if given the option of having to go in against a fully powered force or one that has been whittled down by artillery and air support, which is the better option? People will die in combat, just the way it is, but that doesn't mean you resign oneself to making combat a war of attrition and just throw bodies at the problem, Zap Brannigan style. Every soldier's life is important and we should always try to minimize the losses. I also know that the US Military mindset isn't one of nonchalance, but of training and preparedness so I don't see how you can think it is braver/better/whatever to needlessly risk lives.
He did say 'death of any sort'. That little phrase makes your argument pointless IMO (but to answer your question, of course I would rather go up against the weakened force).
So I was wrong about the refugee thing, granted. I'd been unaware of the sheer volume of DPRK refugees leaving the country, and now conceded the point.
However, when it comes to the fighting of a war, I still hold that Seoul will suffer servere damage. Even if Katyusha's only get one volley off, then they're work is done. THey're carpet bombing a city, not trying to take out specific targets, and one volley from a Katyusha will more than pay for the vehicle itself, and its ammunition. If it gets a second shot off, that's a lucky break.
ANd on the Kosovo point, it was most definitely NOT anywhere near a 100% success rate. The air force was considered the 'primary strike arm' in Kosovo, and according to the same article, a total of 6766 sorties were planned, with only 3766 of those actually being launched. Even then NATO barely engagege half the targets on their big list of things to blow up. THat shows a shockingly low success rate against an enemy whose dug in and has had time to prepare.
In Iraq, their ground forces in Kuwait were deployed out in the open desert behind piles of sand in order to defend against a classical ground assault. The Iraqi's had barely occupied Kuwait, and hardly had time to build up massive concrete fortification like the North Koreans have. The vast majority of Iraqi bunkers were likely command and control facilities deeper inside the nation, instead of forward bunkers. That is what allowed us to so completely devastate the Iraqi's. That is also a one time situation that will not be repeated in North Korea. So yes, I will tell you again in the context of the situation we are discussing, the Iraqis were using piles of sand, not reinforced concrete to protect their military assets in the field.
Finally, we do have to consider the rest of the DPRK's military, since it won't just be an artillery bombardment. There will be tanks and infantry crossing the border in huge numbers, and I'm willing to bet most aircraft would be dedicated to supporting the ground troops fighting there instead of hunting for artillery.
One salvo, which could have tragic consequences, does not constitute a massive threat
A single Lancaster would drop c8700lbs of explosives on Berlin in a night raid.
By day, a single B-17 would usually carry a 5000lb payload to the German capital
Whole squadrons went in day and night pounding Berlin.
lets keep the potential artillery bombardment on Seoul in perspective.
However, when it comes to the fighting of a war, I still hold that Seoul will suffer servere damage. Even if Katyusha's only get one volley off, then they're work is done. THey're carpet bombing a city, not trying to take out specific targets, and one volley from a Katyusha will more than pay for the vehicle itself, and its ammunition. If it gets a second shot off, that's a lucky break.
I dont know what the accuracy of the Katyusha is, but I have heard that they could be wildly innacurate, missing a target by almost a kilometer (maybe more) at times. I don't know how true that is, but if it is, Seoul need not worry too much. Especially since it occured to me to look up the range of a Katyusha, about 4 miles give or take, so now the North is launching attacks at Seoul from inside South Korea is it?
ANd on the Kosovo point, it was most definitely NOT anywhere near a 100% success rate. The air force was considered the 'primary strike arm' in Kosovo, and according to the same article, a total of 6766 sorties were planned, with only 3766 of those actually being launched. Even then NATO barely engagege half the targets on their big list of things to blow up. THat shows a shockingly low success rate against an enemy whose dug in and has had time to prepare.
I know... even I said that, I was illustrating a point in regards to success rate. Also note, 3766 sorties does not equal 3766 attempts to blow up ground targets. Sorties are a wide variety of missions, from Recon, to SEAD, to air superiority, etc.
In Iraq, their ground forces in Kuwait were deployed out in the open desert behind piles of sand in order to defend against a classical ground assault. The Iraqi's had barely occupied Kuwait, and hardly had time to build up massive concrete fortification like the North Koreans have. The vast majority of Iraqi bunkers were likely command and control facilities deeper inside the nation, instead of forward bunkers. That is what allowed us to so completely devastate the Iraqi's. That is also a one time situation that will not be repeated in North Korea. So yes, I will tell you again in the context of the situation we are discussing, the Iraqis were using piles of sand, not reinforced concrete to protect their military assets in the field.
Except they most definitely weren't. The majority of strike missions conducted in GW1 were done against targets in Iraq, not in Kuwait (due to the risk of collateral to what was largely FRIENDLY civilian infrastructure).
Finally, we do have to consider the rest of the DPRK's military, since it won't just be an artillery bombardment. There will be tanks and infantry crossing the border in huge numbers, and I'm willing to bet most aircraft would be dedicated to supporting the ground troops fighting there instead of hunting for artillery.
Given the way the air campaign went in GW1 (over a third of coalition air assets were tasked specifically to engage in the SCUD-hunt), I wouldn't say thats true. Besides that, one of the reasons that Desert Storm was so much more successful than Kosovo was that Iraqi military units weren't as dispersed as Yugoslav units were. Considering that North Korea is (most likely) going to utilize 'human wave' tactics (again), even more-so than the Iraqi's, airpower and massed American/South Korean artillery are going to reap a bloody toll on North Korean forces very, very quickly.
To put it into bloodthirsty military warmonger terms: You see a lot of hostiles trying to overrun us, I see a target rich environment.
Since I'm about to unplug myself from the Internet for the next few hours (so I actually get work done...curse you facebook tetris!) I'll just make a quick reply.
No, coalition targets were: a) Iraqi command and control facilities, and b) Iraqi ground forces. Iraqi ground forces in the middle of the Kuwaiti desert where there were no civillians whatsoever. Basically, the air force couldn't have set the Iraqi army up better if they tried.
First off, there won't be a war. The N. Koreans know they would lose and if they started it, the Chinese wouldn't back them this time.
2nd. Seoul would get nailed by artillery but then the emplacements on Cheju-do would totally ream the entire N. Korean artillery force. S. Korea has a smaller military but has nicer toys while N. Korea is playing with Russian and Chinese cast-offs. Seol would be hit by 1-200 shells, hardly enough to decimate a city of that size plus if there was any kind of warning at all, most of the population would be ok (barring gas and chems) because there're shelters everywhere; they've only had 50 years advance notice that they could be hit at any time....
3rd. Everytime the N. Koreans start something, all the doomsayers come out of the woodwork and pronounce the end of the world. Sorry, not going to happen. Ya see, the Koreans have a term, "Han" which means that brother Kim won't be out trying kill off all the Lees and Chos.
Oh noes, Korea is on the brink of war.....again. If an attack on the presidential estate didn't spark a war....
1968 Jan 21, A group of 31 North Korean commandos trudged undetected for about 40 miles from the border to the presidential Blue House of South Korean President Park Chung-hee in downtown Seoul. South Korean security forces repelled the assault. 28 North Koreans and 34 South Koreans were killed.
1974 Aug 15, South Korean President Park Chung-hee escaped an assassination attempt in which his wife was killed. Park’s daughter took over as 1st lady.
1975 Aug, North Korea seized 33 South Korean fisherman near their maritime border. In 2006 Choi Uk-il, one of the 33, escaped to China and returned home to South Korea.
1987 29 Nov, North Korean agents place explosives on Korean Air, Flight 858 resulting in the deaths of all aboard (104 passengers and 11 crew).
1998 Dec 18, South Korea sank a half-submarine belonging to North Korea and recovered the body of a crewman in a wet suit carrying a grenade.
1999 Jun 11, South Korean ships rammed and briefly repelled 4 North Korean patrol boats. North Korea warned South Korea to withdraw warships from disputed waters in the Yellow Sea on the 5th day of a standoff.
1999 Jun 14, South Korean warships sank a North Korean torpedo boat and damaged another in the Yellow Sea.
2002 Jun 29, A South Korean patrol boat was sunk in the yellow Sea border waters and four South Koreans were killed with 22 wounded. North and South Korea blamed each other for the sea battle which cast a shadow over the South's World Cup finale as well as reconciliation efforts on the peninsula.
2010 March The sinking of the Cheonan by a N. Korean min-sub resulted in 110 deaths.
ChrisWWII wrote:Since I'm about to unplug myself from the Internet for the next few hours (so I actually get work done...curse you facebook tetris!) I'll just make a quick reply.
No, coalition targets were: a) Iraqi command and control facilities, and b) Iraqi ground forces. Iraqi ground forces in the middle of the Kuwaiti desert where there were no civillians whatsoever. Basically, the air force couldn't have set the Iraqi army up better if they tried.
Err... no, really, most targets were inside of Iraq, during the war there were approx. 35k sorties flown against targets in Kuwait out of over 100k sorties total, thus the majority of sorties flown were against Iraqi targets (and as a side note, the Iraqi army was in retreat from Kuwait for a large chunk of those 35k sorties).
What exactly were you trying to allude to regarding the occupation of Germany after WWII chaos0xomega? That was no cakewalk. There was an active insurgency by die-hard Fascists who would take any opportunity to kill occupying GI's.
Stormrider wrote:What exactly were you trying to allude to regarding the occupation of Germany after WWII chaos0xomega? That was no cakewalk. There was an active insurgency by die-hard Fascists who would take any opportunity to kill occupying GI's.
If there was, I have never heard of it, despite having researched the topic extensively. Aside from the short-lived near mythical "Werewolves," it appears there wasn't any insurgency at all. In fact, from the research I did, no allied soldier was ever proven to have been intentionally killed in hostilities following the German surrender. So please, do furnish proof of your claims.
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:One salvo, which could have tragic consequences, does not constitute a massive threat
A single Lancaster would drop c8700lbs of explosives on Berlin in a night raid.
By day, a single B-17 would usually carry a 5000lb payload to the German capital
Whole squadrons went in day and night pounding Berlin.
lets keep the potential artillery bombardment on Seoul in perspective.
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:In any case I doubt if even the NK regime are crazy enough to actually attack Seoul unprovoked. *pray*
They aren't. This stuff is typical saber-rattling. And we aren't going to go to war because of a few artillery shells fell on an ally. agnosto has it right.
I take it that you have little concept of the difference between an artillery salvo and carpet bombing.
The whole thing is being blown out of proportion.
No I do not have first hand experience of suffering such attacks. My parents however did. And unlike you sprogs some of us have grown up through the Cold War where there was potentially a damned sight more explosives aimed our way than will ever fall on Seoul.
I still hold that Seoul will suffer servere damage.
What does severe mean?
I think most of us are pretty underqualfied to make these guesses, but we're doubly so if we're going to use vague adjectives.
So what's "severe?"
Does the ROK not have shelters and contingecy plans in place? The Koreas are two states that have spent a long time thinking about each other. The DPRK has loaded up on long ranged artillery, they even built impractical, otherwise useless heavy artillery simply to have the correct range to carry out a specific fire mission. That's bad news for Seoul. On the other hand, these pieces are no mystery. The ROK no doubt has thought about what will happen if artillery comes down, and I'm sure it won't involve sitting in the open being shocked.
It seems unlikely to me that the DPRK would ever just start shooting out of the blue. If they did, by the time they did there would be an even higher level of preparation, which would result in less severe damage.
Buildings would get wrecked, sure. But I don't think you'd see the city demolished, or massive casualties.
They fired hundreds of rounds over the course of an hour in the recent exchange, and 4 people were killed. Granted, this wasn't a heavily populated area, but I feel like maybe people are overestimating what artillery can do. It's not like every shell that lands sends 15 bodies flying through the air. Warfare (especially the sort the DPRK would fight) is a lot about spamming crap at your enemy. Hundreds of thousands of shots for every kill.
I take it that you have little concept of the difference between an artillery salvo and carpet bombing.
The whole thing is being blown out of proportion.
There was a big difference between that and 3-4 thousand artillery rounds of sarin gas being dropped on a city too. A very densely populated city to boot.
No I do not have first hand experience of suffering such attacks.
My parents however did.
I watched a movie where it happened once!
And unlike you sprogs some of us have grown up through the Cold War where there was potentially a damned sight more explosives aimed our way than will ever fall on Seoul.
....
North Korea has nukes. Were the russians going to drop holy hand grenades or did you forget one of the biggest points of contention?
Stop being such drama queens.
Any realistic estimate places the civilian casualties resulting from a korean conflict initiated by the north at exceedingly high numbers. It's not dramaqueenism so much as pragmatism.
Agnosto was on the money.
Yeah, nothing will come of this until china finally abandons them.
Why would you risk death of any sort if you didn't have to do so?
You're asking the wrong person.
I think you are confusing being foolish and being in a dangerous situation. I doubt you would foolishly put yourself into stupidly dangerous situations, as opposed to having to be in dangerous situations in general. As someone who was the "sharp end of the spear" if given the option of having to go in against a fully powered force or one that has been whittled down by artillery and air support, which is the better option? People will die in combat, just the way it is, but that doesn't mean you resign oneself to making combat a war of attrition and just throw bodies at the problem, Zap Brannigan style. Every soldier's life is important and we should always try to minimize the losses. I also know that the US Military mindset isn't one of nonchalance, but of training and preparedness so I don't see how you can think it is braver/better/whatever to needlessly risk lives.
He did say 'death of any sort'. That little phrase makes your argument pointless IMO (but to answer your question, of course I would rather go up against the weakened force).
Militarily I think the emphasis is more on the 'if you didn't have to' part of the sentence; you do have to risk death in the service. That doesn't mean it should be be a needless risk or that it operations should be undertaken without regard to casualties. The Marines don't risk the life of their men if they don't have to. Sometimes they do.
chaos0xomega wrote:
1. We're (or at least I am) talking about airpower in regards to ending an artillery threat to one city. You don't NEED to annihilate the North Korean military, you need to annihilate a few key sites. The rest of it is mostly legwork.
No, you need to eliminate a lot more than a few key sites. If it were just a matter of a few key sites the artillery threat to Seoul wouldn't be an issue for consideration at all.
chaos0xomega wrote:
2. I have megabytes upon megabytes of hardened reinforced concrete structures that the Iraqis were using in GW1. You want to tell me that they used sandbag bunkers again?
It doesn't matter. The point is that it took a month to eliminate 40% of the Iraqi combat force's vehicles, and most of those were lost when they attempted offensive maneuvers in Kuwait. The rate of success for strikes on defended targets was only around 20%; eliminating about 10% of all defensive units when the air campaign concluded.
chaos0xomega wrote:
3. Katyushas are innacurate, and take a long time to reload. They also have the nasty sideeffect of leaving a nice smoketrail for you to follow.
Inaccuracy doesn't really matter when you're aiming a city as densely populated as Seoul.
chaos0xomega wrote:
And once again, unless I am mistaken, that doesn't give us a success rate, that gives total force impact. That could very well be (though I doubt it, mainly because I know better) a 100% success rate, if during the 78 days, coalition airpower was only tasked with destroying 14 tanks, 18 apcs, and 20 artillery pieces.
That's not how success rates work. Success rates reference the rate at which a given number of strikes can be expected to succeed in hitting their targets. If you don't factor in the number of strikes required, then all "success rates" would be 100% given sufficient time, which doesn't tell us anything at all.
chaos0xomega wrote:
I think this is the crux of the matter. Between the S. Koreans and US air assets on hand, I have no doubt that we have enough,
See, that's your problem, you're certain of something. Certainty is basically just shorthand for not thinking hard enough.
chaos0xomega wrote:
And the chances of them ALL being mobilized to destroy one city is nonexistant (unless Kim Jong Who has really gone totally insane).
It doesn't have to be all of them. It just needs to be enough of them to present a credible threat which isn't easily countered.
More to the point, you've already negated your initial premise that total mobilization against Seoul cannot happen by providing a possibility that indicates that it can. This should make you uncertain.
chaos0xomega wrote:
He did say 'death of any sort'. That little phrase makes your argument pointless IMO (but to answer your question, of course I would rather go up against the weakened force).
I mean, obviously we all risk death merely by being alive, but that's simply a contingent necessity.
You've got to remember that valuation is what determines necessity. If you sufficiently value the military, and the concept of being an infantryman, then you have to accept a certain sort of death risk.
If you don't value those things, then you don't have to risk that sort of death.
In any case, Ahtman correctly identified the central point of the argument as necessity.
North Korea has nukes. Were the russians going to drop holy hand grenades or did you forget one of the biggest points of contention?
North Korea has a couple dozen nuclear weapons, tops. It doesn't have a proven, viable method for delivering them, and even if they did, their weapons are jokes compared to the output of the multi-megaton warheads the US and Soviets would have been slinging around.
Why do we need to attack North Korea?
Ostensibly because they attacked South Korea (our ally which we have sworn to defend). In any case, nobody is talking about attacking North Korea, we're talking about defending South Korea.
No, you need to eliminate a lot more than a few key sites. If it were just a matter of a few key sites the artillery threat to Seoul wouldn't be an issue for consideration at all.
Semantics. There are known North Korean artillery sites, these are the ones you concern yourself with, followed by any other locations that N. Korean artillery decides to set up shop. They are few in relation to the area of the country.
It doesn't matter. The point is that it took a month to eliminate 40% of the Iraqi combat force's vehicles, and most of those were lost when they attempted offensive maneuvers in Kuwait. The rate of success for strikes on defended targets was only around 20%; eliminating about 10% of all defensive units when the air campaign concluded.
Sources please?
Inaccuracy doesn't really matter when you're aiming a city as densely populated as Seoul.
Irrelevant when the other deficiencies of the Katyusha are taken into consideration.
That's not how success rates work. Success rates reference the rate at which a given number of strikes can be expected to succeed in hitting their targets. If you don't factor in the number of strikes required, then all "success rates" would be 100% given sufficient time, which doesn't tell us anything at all.
I'm sorry I don't think I'm following, in any case I know what a success rate is, thank you.
More to the point, you've already negated your initial premise that total mobilization against Seoul cannot happen by providing a possibility that indicates that it can. This should make you uncertain.
Errr... what? It WON'T happen. Stop waxing philosophical, you know as well as I do that marching a million man army at Seoul is as ridiculous a proposition as they come.
Before pointing out that the Katyushas can not reach Seoul check the weapon system type. The ones you pointed out were the WW2 models not the BM-21 or BM-27 in North Korea´s arsenal with ranges up to 40km depending on the warhead. So, yes the Katyushas can reach Seoul and, unless you have planes within range able to bombard, drive away before you can get the whole battery.
Are the North Koreans insane enough to go to war? I don´t think so but sometimes when countries are playing chicken they misgauge the opponents response like Hitler in Poland or Japan after Pearl Harbor.
Miguelsan wrote:Before pointing out that the Katyushas can not reach Seoul check the weapon system type. The ones you pointed out were the WW2 models not the BM-21 or BM-27 in North Korea´s arsenal with ranges up to 40km depending on the warhead. So, yes the Katyushas can reach Seoul and unless you have planes within range able to bombard and drive away before you can get the whole battery.
chaos0xomega wrote:
Ostensibly because they attacked South Korea (our ally which we have sworn to defend). In any case, nobody is talking about attacking North Korea, we're talking about defending South Korea.
Wait, what? Did you not write in your first post that it was "time to end the Korean war", or something very similar?
chaos0xomega wrote:
Semantics. There are known North Korean artillery sites, these are the ones you concern yourself with, followed by any other locations that N. Korean artillery decides to set up shop. They are few in relation to the area of the country.
So are the number of soldiers relative to the population of South Korea, but those troops that are in South Korea are still important.
Also, that's not an issue of semantics. Its an issue of you dismissing something without legitimate cause. An issue of semantic would imply that referring to something as "few" or "many" is not a substantive difference, unless you're discussing semantic in the proper, and not the colloquial, sense.
chaos0xomega wrote:
Sources please?
I asked you if you have Jstore access before, but you didn't answer.
chaos0xomega wrote:
Irrelevant when the other deficiencies of the Katyusha are taken into consideration.
What disadvantages? That it can be subject to counter-battery fire like any other artillery system?
But no, that's not irrelevant at all, if it were you wouldn't have addressed the matter of accuracy at all. You seem to be allowing your masculinity to get the better of you, it isn't leading you to make forceful arguments.
chaos0xomega wrote:
I'm sorry I don't think I'm following, in any case I know what a success rate is, thank you.
No, you believe that you do, but your belief is incorrect as demonstrated by your behavior.
chaos0xomega wrote:
Errr... what? It WON'T happen. Stop waxing philosophical, you know as well as I do that marching a million man army at Seoul is as ridiculous a proposition as they come.
That's not what we were discussing. We were discussing artillery being tasked to strike Seoul, and you said it couldn't happen unless Kim Jong Il is insane, which he may be. As such it could come to pass that Kim Jong Il tasks all artillery to strike Seoul.
That's not waxing philosophical, that's expecting people to utilize words correctly. The phrase "highly unlikey" does not mean "impossible".
I laugh at all of this optimist generalship. "if they're right here, we'll take care of it with airpower". Don't you just maybe think the enemy is using that as a mis-direction? Wouldn't they have planned for that already? Static warfare has been outdated for 100 years for a reason.
Shelling Soeul is psychological in it's threat more than it is strategic. It certainly is a hub of communications trade, government and the military. A prime target for attack, but I can't imagine the ROK would so many eggs in one basket so close to North Korea's border without a major contingency plan. That makes no sense at all.
Something ain't jiving in our attempts to communicate here. You know what, you win, whatever. You and I can argue until kingdom come about what will happen, but until something happens, its meaningless.
At the end of the day, there is no reason that can or will conclusively stop two nations from going go to war. You can argue about economic ties this, social structure that, pointlessness, whatever, but history has shown that to not be the case more than once.
chaos0xomega wrote:
At the end of the day, there is no reason that can or will conclusively stop two nations from going go to war. You can argue about economic ties this, social structure that, pointlessness, whatever, but history has shown that to not be the case more than once.
Well, yeah. Average people are average and stupid people are stupid, unfortunately they tend to be average with respect to one thing and stupid with respect to another, or possess value sets that aren't similar to those of others.
Stating that something shouldn't be done has no bearing on whether or not it will be done.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stormrider wrote:A prime target for attack, but I can't imagine the ROK would so many eggs in one basket so close to North Korea's border without a major contingency plan. That makes no sense at all.
See, this is why the idea of "winning" wars needs to be burnt out of our collective memory.
chaos0xomega wrote:
At the end of the day, there is no reason that can or will conclusively stop two nations from going go to war. You can argue about economic ties this, social structure that, pointlessness, whatever, but history has shown that to not be the case more than once.
Well, yeah. Average people are average and stupid people are stupid, unfortunately they tend to be average with respect to one thing and stupid with respect to another, or possess value sets that aren't similar to those of others.
Stating that something shouldn't be done has no bearing on whether or not it will be done.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stormrider wrote:A prime target for attack, but I can't imagine the ROK would so many eggs in one basket so close to North Korea's border without a major contingency plan. That makes no sense at all.
See, this is why the idea of "winning" wars needs to be burnt out of our collective memory.
Definitely, "winning" for North Korea would be killing as many South Koreans as possible before they're scraped off the globe by other nations. Winning is a relative condition in a conflict.
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:I take it that you have little concept of the difference between an artillery salvo and carpet bombing.
You seem to think that establishing that casualties will be in the low thousands somehow means that they shouldn't be the primary concern of engagement. That's not a very sensible, or humane thing.
No I do not have first hand experience of suffering such attacks.
My parents however did.
And unlike you sprogs some of us have grown up through the Cold War where there was potentially a damned sight more explosives aimed our way than will ever fall on Seoul.
So? Therefore there's no problem with thousands of people in Seoul being killed in artillery bombardments?
Stop being such drama queens.
That's not constructive, nor an accurate description of this thread. Do better.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:Yeah, nothing will come of this until china finally abandons them.
Abandonment isn't the aim. Don't forget the West also gives heavily in food aid. There's been a lot of US aid, even private US aid from churches, into North Korea (sometimes the North Koreans even invent reasons to arrest the people bringing food over, claiming their trying to sneak Christian teachings in, because the North Korean government really are spiteful dicks).
The issue is that North Korea is dependant on that aid to prevent collapse, and see acting up as the best way to get more. China is now more or less aligned with the West on this issue, and it appears similarly at a loss as to how to stop North Korea acting up, without driving them into collapse.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stormrider wrote:Shelling Soeul is psychological in it's threat more than it is strategic. It certainly is a hub of communications trade, government and the military. A prime target for attack, but I can't imagine the ROK would so many eggs in one basket so close to North Korea's border without a major contingency plan. That makes no sense at all.
It would make more sense for the hostage taker to point the gun at the SWAT team, as they're the guys he's going to have to kill to get out of the room. Except of course, the hostage taker knows he can't kill a dozen SWAT guys by himself, so he point the gun at the head of his hostage to force concessions from the police.
Similarly, North Korea points a load of artillery at Seoul and says 'give us more aid and puff up our ego or we'll do something very silly'.
A mass exodus of North Korean workers from the Far East of Russia is under way, according to reports coming out of the region. As the two Koreas edged towards the brink of war this week, it appears that the workers in Russia have been called back to aid potential military operations.
Vladnews agency, based in Vladivostok, reported that North Korean workers had left the town of Nakhodka en masse shortly after the escalation of tension on the Korean peninsula earlier this week. "Traders have left the kiosks and markets, workers have abandoned building sites, and North Korean secret service employees working in the region have joined them and left," the agency reported.
Russia's migration service said that there were over 20,000 North Koreans in Russia at the beginning of 2010, of which the vast majority worked in construction. The workers are usually chaperoned by agents from Kim Jong-il's security services and have little contact with the world around them. Defectors have suggested that the labourers work 13-hour days and that most of their pay is sent back to the government in Pyongyang. Hundreds of workers have fled the harsh conditions and live in hiding in Russia, constantly in fear of being deported back to North Korea.
"North Korea's government sends thousands of its citizens to Russia to earn money, most of which is funnelled through government accounts," says Simon Ostrovsky, a journalist who discovered secret North Korean logging camps in the northern Siberian taiga. "Workers are often sent to remote locations for years at a time to work long hours and get as little as three days off per year." Now it appears that some kind of centralised order has been given for the workers to return home.
Russia's Pacific port of Vladivostok is thousands of miles and seven time zones from Moscow, but only around 100 miles from the country's heavily controlled border with North Korea. In 1996, a diplomat from the South Korean consulate in the city was murdered with a poisoned pencil, in what was widely believed to be a hit carried out by the North's secret agents. There are even two North Korean restaurants in the city. It is not known how many of the workers in other Russian towns have been called back to their homeland this week, or whether the exodus is permanent or temporary.
" the labourers work 13-hour days and that most of their pay is sent back to the government in Pyongyang " and you thought your income tax was high eh ?!
A mass exodus of North Korean workers from the Far East of Russia is under way, according to reports coming out of the region. As the two Koreas edged towards the brink of war this week, it appears that the workers in Russia have been called back to aid potential military operations.
Vladnews agency, based in Vladivostok, reported that North Korean workers had left the town of Nakhodka en masse shortly after the escalation of tension on the Korean peninsula earlier this week. "Traders have left the kiosks and markets, workers have abandoned building sites, and North Korean secret service employees working in the region have joined them and left," the agency reported.
Russia's migration service said that there were over 20,000 North Koreans in Russia at the beginning of 2010, of which the vast majority worked in construction. The workers are usually chaperoned by agents from Kim Jong-il's security services and have little contact with the world around them. Defectors have suggested that the labourers work 13-hour days and that most of their pay is sent back to the government in Pyongyang. Hundreds of workers have fled the harsh conditions and live in hiding in Russia, constantly in fear of being deported back to North Korea.
"North Korea's government sends thousands of its citizens to Russia to earn money, most of which is funnelled through government accounts," says Simon Ostrovsky, a journalist who discovered secret North Korean logging camps in the northern Siberian taiga. "Workers are often sent to remote locations for years at a time to work long hours and get as little as three days off per year." Now it appears that some kind of centralised order has been given for the workers to return home.
Russia's Pacific port of Vladivostok is thousands of miles and seven time zones from Moscow, but only around 100 miles from the country's heavily controlled border with North Korea. In 1996, a diplomat from the South Korean consulate in the city was murdered with a poisoned pencil, in what was widely believed to be a hit carried out by the North's secret agents. There are even two North Korean restaurants in the city. It is not known how many of the workers in other Russian towns have been called back to their homeland this week, or whether the exodus is permanent or temporary.
" the labourers work 13-hour days and that most of their pay is sent back to the government in Pyongyang " and you thought your income tax was high eh ?!
reds8n wrote:
" the labourers work 13-hour days and that most of their pay is sent back to the government in Pyongyang " and you thought your income tax was high eh ?!
Interesting read. Until recently there was a cross-border, joint economic project in Kaesong until the N. Koreans demanded something like a 3000% increase in rents and wages (which the government kept most of).
The country is strapped for hard currency so it is interesting that they would call back workers that are providing it. Then again, they do like to rattle their sabre and aren't above shooting themselves in the foot just to try and make people think they're preparing for something.
It was something of an eye opener. I'd heard/read something..somewhere... before about them having workers abroad, but I didn't think it was that many.
meanwhile....
nother cable relays a discussion over an official lunch in February 2010 between former South Korean Vice Foreign Minister Chun Yung-woo and the US ambassador to Seoul, Kathleen Stephens.
The minister is said to have revealed that a new, younger generation of Chinese leaders no longer regarded North Korea as a useful or reliable ally, and would not risk renewed armed conflict on the peninsula.
Mr Chun confidently had predicted that North Korea "had already collapsed economically and would collapse politically two to three years after the death of Kim Jong-il", despite his efforts to obtain Chinese help and to secure the succession for his son, Ms Stephens wrote
Describing a generational difference in Chinese attitudes toward North Korea, Chun claimed [name redacted] believed Korea should be unified under ROK [Republic of Korea] control," she added.
Mr Chun said the Chinese officials "were ready to 'face the new reality' that the DPRK [Democratic People's Republic of Korea] now had little value to China as a buffer state - a view that since North Korea's 2006 nuclear test had reportedly gained traction among senior PRC [People's Republic of China] leaders."
"Chun argued that in the event of a North Korean collapse, China would clearly 'not welcome' any US military presence north of the DMZ [Demilitarised Zone]," the ambassador's message said.
"The PRC would be comfortable with a reunified Korea controlled by Seoul and anchored to the United States in a 'benign alliance' - as long as Korea was not hostile towards China," it added
It would seem likely that any reunified Korea would be far too busy for quite soem time to go picking a fight with China
If any reunification did happen... wow.. that would be worth seeing. Germany had an awkward time when it was "fixed"... but the differences between N and S Korea ( generally) would make that look like nothing.
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:No I do not have first hand experience of suffering such attacks.
My parents however did.
And unlike you sprogs some of us have grown up through the Cold War where there was potentially a damned sight more explosives aimed our way than will ever fall on Seoul.
So? Therefore there's no problem with thousands of people in Seoul being killed in artillery bombardments?
After all, what's the worst that could happen?
reds8n wrote:If any reunification did happen... wow.. that would be worth seeing. Germany had an awkward time when it was "fixed"... but the differences between N and S Korea ( generally) would make that look like nothing.
Would it really be that bad? I mean, is North Korea in a state of collapse or...well I don't know how bad things are really.
reds8n wrote:
Russia's Pacific port of Vladivostok is thousands of miles and seven time zones from Moscow, but only around 100 miles from the country's heavily controlled border with North Korea. In 1996, a diplomat from the South Korean consulate in the city was murdered with a poisoned pencil, in what was widely believed to be a hit carried out by the North's secret agents. There are even two North Korean restaurants in the city.
Am I the only one wondering what would be served in a North Korean restaurant?
reds8n wrote:
Russia's Pacific port of Vladivostok is thousands of miles and seven time zones from Moscow, but only around 100 miles from the country's heavily controlled border with North Korea. In 1996, a diplomat from the South Korean consulate in the city was murdered with a poisoned pencil, in what was widely believed to be a hit carried out by the North's secret agents. There are even two North Korean restaurants in the city.
Am I the only one wondering what would be served in a North Korean restaurant?
At the risk of national stereotyping, I bet that's one city that doesn't need a dog pound
North Korea is a hell hole for nearly the whole population. Millions starved to death when the economy broke in the 1990s. They kinda recovered from that, but still only limp by on foreign aid.
Only the top leadership have any decent standard of living and they must live in a state of constant plotting and paranoia that rivals Imperial Rome.
I was responding to the shallow and inaccurate assertion that because I don't live under the threat of shelling that my points were invalid.
My parents' first hand testimony of what aerial bombardment is like trumps patronising arm chair hypothesis from someone living in a country with no such experience.
Does NK have sarin gas?
The point is still valid. NK won't shell Seoul.
And yes, if you read my earlier comments, you will see that I am of the opinion that China should pull its finger out of its puzzle and wag it very sternly in the direction of Kim Jong-il.
Evidently the Wiki leaks notes China's switching to being ok with North Korea falling. NK's leadership should be wailing like a baby right now and calling Vietnam.
agnosto wrote:Ask Russia, commies (and dictators) love a good military parade.
....and that girl about the 1:53 mark is probably in a concentration camp now for smiling.
The Navy guys are hard core, lose your step in the formation get stabbed on the back by the guy behind you.
On a more serious note, the problem with all this saber rattling is that sometimes governments miscalculate how far the opponent will endure the threats and then war starts, see WWI or WWII.
agnosto wrote:Ask Russia, commies (and dictators) love a good military parade.
....and that girl about the 1:53 mark is probably in a concentration camp now for smiling.
The Navy guys are hard core, lose your step in the formation get stabbed on the back by the guy behind you.
On a more serious note, the problem with all this saber rattling is that sometimes governments miscalculate how far the opponent will endure the threats and then war starts, see WWI or WWII.
M.
Indeed, this is eerily similar to the Franz Ferdinand assassination in it's potential international impact. There's so many countries tied up in this mess.
ONly, they're not tied up on opposite sides in allianced. So, this won't snowball into World War III, at worst it'll snowball into Korean War II (or, continued given that the DPRK and ROK never officially signed a treaty ending their war).
In all probability, yes. Or at least a significant stockpile of chemical weapons.
No probability about it.
I'm not allowed to speak of any of my experience, but here is some open source information.
Under emergency conditions, the North may be capable of producing up to 20,000 tons of chemical agents a year. According to this estimate, the North is capable of producing a wide variety of chemical agents including: adamsite (DM), chloroacetophenone (CN), chlorobenzylidene malononitrile (CS), hydrogen cyanide (AC), mustard-family (H or HD), phosgene (CG and CX), sarin (GB), soman (GD), tabun (GA), and V-agents (VM and VX).
.......
North Korea is capable of producing and employing chemical weapons that virtually all the fire support systems in its inventory could deliver, including most of its artillery pieces, multiple rocket launchers (including those mounted on CHAHO-type boats), and mortars. Some bombs the Air Force employs also could deliver chemical agents, as could the FROG or the SCUD missile.
I'm not allowed to speak of any of my experience, but here is some open source information.
Well, unless your experiences included doing inventory in a DPRK chemical stockpile, there is probability about it (hence the word "may"). This is why intelligence services have method analysts.
Lots of debate on this topic it seems.
