Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

"SK is highly underestimated, they could probably hold NK with some US help "

I have 2, count them 2, South Korean men in my living room who finished their military obligation less than 10 years ago for one, and 5 years ago for the other. One is a nephew and the other is a cousin in law I guess you would call it. They are on a visit here for a month, easy to do since the NO Visa agreement went into effect.

They have no doubt North Korean Infantry can walk and occupy Seoul in one week with everything the world could throw at them except Nukes and other weapons of mass destruction if that "week" is when the ground is sufficiently frozen to support military movement.

That would be anytime from November to March each year.

For those opposed to Nukes, would you rather support a universal draft so you can be marched into combat and take your chance of dying face to face with the other guy?

I learned to always kill from a distance, the greater the distance the better. Less chance of one of your guys getting bagged, easier to resupply the ammo, and its called a war for a reason, fair play is in the movies.

Once they have Seoul, what's you gonna do?

Personally? Im for the draft in part, though any actual combat by draft should be only national defence and not a tour of duty somewhere else. Its one thing to be forced to defend your hometown and another to fight for that hometown an ocean away. If its out of country deployment all those going should be volunteered sign-ups or vlolunteers from the draft section of the force.

Which PM?, because in the last 4 years Japan had 4 different PM, and I´m including Koizumi that held the post for 7 years.

M.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:"SK is highly underestimated, they could probably hold NK with some US help "

I have 2, count them 2, South Korean men in my living room who finished their military obligation less than 10 years ago for one, and 5 years ago for the other. One is a nephew and the other is a cousin in law I guess you would call it. They are on a visit here for a month, easy to do since the NO Visa agreement went into effect.

They have no doubt North Korean Infantry can walk and occupy Seoul in one week with everything the world could throw at them except Nukes and other weapons of mass destruction if that "week" is when the ground is sufficiently frozen to support military movement.

That would be anytime from November to March each year.

For those opposed to Nukes, would you rather support a universal draft so you can be marched into combat and take your chance of dying face to face with the other guy?

I learned to always kill from a distance, the greater the distance the better. Less chance of one of your guys getting bagged, easier to resupply the ammo, and its called a war for a reason, fair play is in the movies.

Once they have Seoul, what's you gonna do?

Assuming they can actually mount the sustained offensive to reach and capture a city of more than 10 million people. Which is a big assumption that few military analysts are willing to make.

With such negligible airpower, it wouldn’t be hard to simply annihilate the North Korean lines of supply. While North Korea’s military sounds impressive if you just look at their total number of available troops, their ability to move those troops and keep them in supply is woeful. As in, dependant on flat bed trucks the Chinese gave them 20 years ago kind of woeful. An offensive based on scarce logistics capability and Having such scarce logistics capability with scarce defences.and having it completely undefended

And yes, nuclear weapons are absolutely, 100% off the table. Even if the ludicrous happens and North Korea wins, you don’t start dropping nuclear weapons into China’s area of influence. It would be absolute madness.

Once they have Seoul, what's you gonna do?

Wait for china to make north korea a province and liberate the south through flying pieces of metal that drop other pieces of metal that explode. It's not like we haven't been looking for an excuse to leave Iraq for 4 years and china is every bit as imperialist as it once was. They don't care about North Korea. At all. It is rich in natural resources, run by an idiot madman, and harms their economy simply be existing. Once it no longer serves as a functional political buffer masking their own human rights issues they will just take it. Ask tibet how much they care about national sovereignty during times of war.

Replace an unpopular and dubious war with a truly righteous one against a regime more insane then the nazis ever were. It's not hard to drum up world support for military action, especially in modern media times.

Personally? Im for the draft in part, though any actual combat by draft should be only national defence and not a tour of duty somewhere else.

Defense is proactive. Otherwise you're just trying to prolong the time it takes for you to lose, and when war does come to your door you will be poorly equipped to handle it. Also global macroeconomic business doesn't tolerate foreign war and the U.S. is anything if not a slave to its economy. There are reasons we don't just sit in the home, and it's far more advantageous to have troops deployed all over the world when responding to a foreign attack then it is to have them all in one place.

Its an interesting situation in that it bears a great deal of similarity to the scenarios drawn up for a Soviet invasion of Europe. Sadly most of those scenarios called for an instantaneous nuclear response as there was no other way to effectively combat the sheer scale of the USSR's army.

What hasn't been mentioned yet is the relative inefficiency of the US military when it cannot effectively operate as a maneuver force. We were able to easily best Iraq during Desert Storm primarily because the Iraqi army couldn't keep up with the alacrity of our mechanized elements. That advantage will not exist on the peninsula where space, and navigable terrain, are at a premium.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ratbarf wrote:Personally? Im for the draft in part, though any actual combat by draft should be only national defence and not a tour of duty somewhere else. Its one thing to be forced to defend your hometown and another to fight for that hometown an ocean away. If its out of country deployment all those going should be volunteered sign-ups or vlolunteers from the draft section of the force.

The issue with the draft is that it tends to turn out troops that are of a fairly low quality; especially given the highly technical nature of the modern military. If the draft is ever reinstated (and I believe it will be, eventually) its unlikely that the conscripted will do much fighting. Instead they'll be used to carry out logistical tasks; leaving the actual violence to professional soldiers.

What hasn't been mentioned yet is the relative inefficiency of the US military when it cannot effectively operate as a maneuver force. We were able to easily best Iraq during Desert Storm primarily because the Iraqi army couldn't keep up with the alacrity of our mechanized elements. That advantage will not exist on the peninsula where space, and navigable terrain, are at a premium.

The methods of american warfare in a full scale war are a bit different then they were in the gulf war. Operation shock and awe is kind of an odd example, but the sheer and ridiculous supremacy of american air power changes the dynamic of modern wars. Satellites have been gathering airstrike intel on north korea for years, we would reduce their ability to logistically prosecute a war almost immediately. Anything larger than a man with an AK47 would likely get an explosive dropped on it. The north has sheer numerical superiority and likely a fanatical zeal unseen since world war 2 japan, however that's relatively meaningless when they can not effectively coordinate a response to heavy armor and they have ordinance dropping on them from the sky all day and all night. Removing them from the south without horrifying civilian casualties is and will be the issue, not defeating them.

dogma wrote:What hasn't been mentioned yet is the relative inefficiency of the US military when it cannot effectively operate as a maneuver force. We were able to easily best Iraq during Desert Storm primarily because the Iraqi army couldn't keep up with the alacrity of our mechanized elements. That advantage will not exist on the peninsula where space, and navigable terrain, are at a premium.

For the most part assuming a North Korean offensive. In that case the first thing to determine is the ability of the defending forces to stop the North Korean offensive. I can’t see anything stopping the decimation of North Korean supply lines from air, and given how limited North Korean logistics are, this is certain to stop any offensive stone cold.

From there the counter offensive may well be harder and bloodier than Iraq, but Iraq is the standard measure for a massacre.

sebster wrote:
For the most part assuming a North Korean offensive. In that case the first thing to determine is the ability of the defending forces to stop the North Korean offensive. I can’t see anything stopping the decimation of North Korean supply lines from air, and given how limited North Korean logistics are, this is certain to stop any offensive stone cold.

From there the counter offensive may well be harder and bloodier than Iraq, but Iraq is the standard measure for a massacre.

The defending forces can't stop a North Korean offensive. Nothing stops 8000 artillery pieces.

That said, you're completely correct about logistical issues. North Korea can't feed its people now; feeding an army on campaign is out of the question. Especially since South Korea is hardly a bread basket. There isn't much to seize from a nation that imports the majority of its food.

ShumaGorath wrote:
The methods of american warfare in a full scale war are a bit different then they were in the gulf war. Operation shock and awe is kind of an odd example, but the sheer and ridiculous supremacy of american air power changes the dynamic of modern wars. Satellites have been gathering airstrike intel on north korea for years, we would reduce their ability to logistically prosecute a war almost immediately. Anything larger than a man with an AK47 would likely get an explosive dropped on it. The north has sheer numerical superiority and likely a fanatical zeal unseen since world war 2 japan, however that's relatively meaningless when they can not effectively coordinate a response to heavy armor and they have ordinance dropping on them from the sky all day and all night. Removing them from the south without horrifying civilian casualties is and will be the issue, not defeating them.

I didn't mean to suggest that the US would lose the war. I meant to suggest that the conflict would be far more bloody than might be commonly thought. The terrain in question neutralizes much of the advantage granted by superior technology. Especially since the US has taken a renewed interest in light warfare. I would expect any ground war to play out in much the same way that it did in the 50's. The great exception being the lack of an aerial duel to rival the one between the Mig 15 and the Sabre.

dogma wrote:The defending forces can't stop a North Korean offensive. Nothing stops 8000 artillery pieces.

What’s the source for the 8,000 figure? When I’ve read things on the issue I’ve heard numbers from 1,000 to around 3,500, I’ve never heard anything like 8,000. That said, my question is fairly academic, whatever the number it’s enough artillery to inflict immense destruction on Seoul.

That said, you're completely correct about logistical issues. North Korea can't feed its people now; feeding an army on campaign is out of the question. Especially since South Korea is hardly a bread basket. There isn't much to seize from a nation that imports the majority of its food.

Yeah, I think this is why any North Korean attack is likely to be shortlived and very unsuccessful, but will inflict a huge toll in lives.

I didn't mean to suggest that the US would lose the war. I meant to suggest that the conflict would be far more bloody than might be commonly thought. The terrain in question neutralizes much of the advantage granted by superior technology. Especially since the US has taken a renewed interest in light warfare. I would expect any ground war to play out in much the same way that it did in the 50's. The great exception being the lack of an aerial duel to rival the one between the Mig 15 and the Sabre.

The capacities of South Korea are also much greater than they were, while North Korea has not really advanced at all.

But I think there’s a general consensus here, that the result of the war isn’t in doubt, just the duration and number of civilian casualties.

sebster wrote:
What’s the source for the 8,000 figure? When I’ve read things on the issue I’ve heard numbers from 1,000 to around 3,500, I’ve never heard anything like 8,000. That said, my question is fairly academic, whatever the number it’s enough artillery to inflict immense destruction on Seoul.

The 8,000 includes artillery which is incapable of hitting Seoul, but would still be a threat to any installation near the DMZ. The lower numbers that get offered tend to include only the 170mm cannons, and larger artillery rockets.

dogma wrote:The 8,000 includes artillery which is incapable of hitting Seoul, but would still be a threat to any installation near the DMZ. The lower numbers that get offered tend to include only the 170mm cannons, and larger artillery rockets.

Ah, cool. Seems kind of obvious now that you mention it

Here's a couple of articles to give some sources, numbers, and some validity to the arguments.

Here's an excerpt from an old article in response to another old article (1997) that was written about the worst case Korean War Scenarior:

On 24 May 1997, The Boston Globe published an op-ed by Bernard E. Trainor entitled "Worst Case Scenario: Suppose North Korea Starts a War." General Trainor (USMC, ret.) offers a scenario in which a desperate regime in the North initiates a second Korean war with the objective of forcing a political change on the peninsula that would somehow resolve their hold on power. Beginning with long range missile and commando attacks on key ports and air bases, the North Koreans would launch a massive ground invasion across the length of the DMZ. Although Trainor agrees that South Korean defensive preparations for such an attack are extraordinarily good, he insists that North Korea could break through if they concentrated enough mass in an all-out offensive. With a breakthrough of the South's defensive line the North could take Seoul, and with Seoul in their possession, Trainor believes the Northern generals would establish a strong defensive line to its south and hand that "victory" over to their political bosses and diplomats with which to negotiate a peace favorable to the North's objectives. Trainor admits that this outcome of a new Korean war is unlikely, but he points out that frustrated and desperate rulers have taken similar risks in the past.

http://www.comw.org/pda/trainor.htm

Here's a 2003 CDI article detailing and analyzing possible war situations with NK but I took an excerpt regarding the projected casualties of the conflict (which, no matter if NK use nukes or not, the casualty rate will be in the hundreds of thousands making Iraq merit its sandbox nickname):

South Korea’s hesitancy to engage in warfare with the North can justifiably partly be attributed
to concern about casualties and damage to itself. Casualties in such a conflict would be in the
hundreds of thousands, and damage to the infrastructure of the Peninsula in the billions of
dollars. The political and economic effects of such a war would reverberate around the region
for decades. When the United States was making serious preparations to go to war with the
DPRK in May 1994, senior military leaders gave estimates to President Bill Clinton that
predicted 52,000 U.S. military personnel killed and wounded, along with 490,000 South
Korean military casualties, in the first 90 days, as well as ‘enormous’ DPRK and civilian
casualties. A month later, in June 1994, the then U.S. commander-in-chief on the Peninsula,
Gen. Gary Luck, estimated in the process of preparing war plans that as many as a million
people might be killed if war broke out, including 80,000-100,000 Americans; the war would
cost the United States more than $100 billion; and the destruction and interruption of business
would cost a trillion dollars to the countries involved and their immediate neighbors. These
figures remain a good indicator of the possible losses if conventional weapons only were used.
However, any use by the North of nuclear weapons, even unsophisticated ones, would send
deaths and injuries into the millions if they were used on city targets.

http://www.cdi.org/north-korea/north-korea-crisis.pdf

However America and its allies would still prevail but it'd be at a huge cost. Given NK's saber rattling history they more than likely will not renew the Korean War however despite lacking the ability to sustain a conflict; they still have the potential to kill millions of people and inflict trillions in damage. If NK were to be backed up by China then it'd be WW3. Even with allied technological superiority; an all out war against NK would at least last months and would be the deadliest war the USA has been involved in for decades.

this looks like a job for...

THE ULTRASMURFS

They would probably be pretty pissed that Kim was masquerading as the god emperor.

Yeah. it would really ruin my day if they called in an exterminatus.