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.

Thats enough to cause thousands to tens of thousands of casualties. The concept is not sane and no commander, no President would do that, not for Korea.

Except its not. Again, it is doubtful that N. Korea has a bomb even half that large, and if it DOES somehow manage to use it, its doubtful that there will be that many American troops located in such a small area. Combat forces are dispersed over an area for many reasons, this being one of them. The thousands to tens of thousands of casualties are more likely to come from N. Korean civilians caught in the crossfire than any US military forces serving in the area.

Besides that, the reports from more than a few intelligence services are all suggesting that morale within the military is lower than its been in years, dissent is rapidly spreading, and in some cases is in the open, and that doesn't even begin to account for the people, especially in southern N. Korea, who would do anything to get the hell out of there.

Besides that, I would like to point out it was the N. Koreans who initiated the attack. If such events continue, there will be open hostilities again, nukes or no, and the U.S. WILL support S. Korea, as per the military pacts signed between the two nations, and as per the PRESIDENT'S statements today.

EDIT: And need I point out that in Gulf War 1, we knew Saddam's regime to be in possession of WMD's, but we attacked anyway? The argument of "they have 'em so we won't fight 'em" really only applies in a MAD situation, which requires both parties to have enough to completely destroy the other... which only one element in the U.S.-North Korea dynamic has... and its not North Korea.

chaos0xomega wrote:Except its not. Again, it is doubtful that N. Korea has a bomb even half that large, and if it DOES somehow manage to use it, its doubtful that there will be that many American troops located in such a small area. Combat forces are dispersed over an area for many reasons, this being one of them. The thousands to tens of thousands of casualties are more likely to come from N. Korean civilians caught in the crossfire than any US military forces serving in the area.

Not if they are landing on a beach.

And once again, thats unlikely, as its fairly low on the plan of action. Not just that, but air supremacy is always achieved before landing troops... how exactly do the N.Koreans plan to get the bomb there? They gonna bury it in the sand? Or maybe they'll just drive a truck?

And once again, if we do land on a beach, its at most 2000-4000 men, probably less than that.

chaos0xomega wrote:And once again, thats unlikely, as its fairly low on the plan of action. Not just that, but air supremacy is always achieved before landing troops... how exactly do the N.Koreans plan to get the bomb there? They gonna bury it in the sand? Or maybe they'll just drive a truck?

And once again, if we do land on a beach, its at most 2000-4000 men, probably less than that.

No invasion force would be just 4,000 men. You want to invade NK you're talking at least one division. Plus the ships covering the landing.

Ballistic missile. One at Seoul, one at the landing.

You mean the ballistic missiles that have failed on every attempted test? Again, not worried. And it would be only 4000 men. It's not high on the plan of action, because there is no need for a large scale amphibious operation. An amphibious op would be used as a raid to capture key coastal facilities (the nature of which haven't been disclosed). You don't need a division to conduct such a deep strike op. The main invasion would come from South Korea, supported by airborne insertions to capture key points along the planned invasion route. The majority of ground forces used would be the VERY capable South Korean military, supported by US armored divisions where necessary.

chaos0xomega wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
I think you drastically overestimate the capability of a nuclear weapon, as well as how many troops tend to be concentrated at a single point during a battle.

mmm...yea

Inchon 2010:

N. Korea has tested two nuclear weapons, one in '06, one in '09. Both of them were overland tests. The first had an output of about 1 kiloton, the second on is disputed but the most 'liberal' estimates I have seen put it at 20 kilotons. The estimates that came from scientific analysis place it at about 5 kilotons. The footage you have shown are from Operation Crossroads in 1946 (my guess is Test Baker). The warhead used was 23 kilotons. Most of what you see in the image is super-heated steam. It was much more visually impressive than it was destructive. What you see there is roughly 6000 ft high and 2000ft across. Really not all that big, certainly not enough to destroy an entire army.

Sunk the ships though. Thats all you need to do.
Unimpressive if you're not in the fleet. Damn impressive if you are.
Thats casualties higher than all the landings ever done by the US, combined. if you think thats acceptable, thank God you're not the President.

It sunk 9 ships out of some 20+, many of which were already heavily damaged from Test Able which was an airburst 500 ft. about the fleet (and which only sunk 5 ships mind you). Not just that, but I would LOVE to know how the North would deliver such a weapon. If they used it, it would be a pre-positioned weapon (just like the tests) in an area which US forces were moving through. They probably would NOT drop it from a plane, either because the bombs they have are too large for a majority of the planes in their inventory to carry, and I have my doubts as to whether the planes that *MIGHT* be able to carry it are even operational at this point (and as far as I know, there are NO such planes in the N.K inventory, even their 'bombers' have a payload capacity equivalent to modern day fighters.. in fact, its less than many modern day fighters, even the F-16, which is a puny little thing can carry 2-3 times more in weight) or because... well, really, there is no chance of such an attempt succeeding. The CIWS/fleet defense systems in place on american naval vessels would make a joke out of anything that tried coming close, and the armies Air Defense Artillery guys would have a field day being able to actually do what they are trained to do for once. And don't even get me started on their half-assed attempts at developing a 'missile'. And then theres the fact that NK pilots get like what, 10 hours of flight time a year if they are lucky? Yeah, not very well trained = I'm not worried.

And that's not counting any economic effects of a major US city being nuked.

Also, regarding all the "only around Hiroshima" or similar comments, take a moment and contemplate how much was left of Hiroshima after the blast. Then imagine the same bomb in downtown LA. Obviously not as many casualties or totally wiped buildings due to better construction, but still enough to cripple the city for years. You don't have to wipe out the entire city to cause significant damage.

...and how does N.Korea plan to deliver a weapon to LA, let alone downtown Honolulu? And really, Hiroshima is not much to worry about. It had a 1 mile radius of destruction, most of the damage done was a result of fire damage following the explosion, and the radiation effects were long term (I.E. negligible in regards to the immediate effects of the bomb) Although people as much as 2 miles from ground zero were incapacitated by radiation burns. Hiroshima is also flat. For a more accurate assessment of a nuclear weapon used by North Korea, it would be letter to look at Nagasaki, which was in mountainous terrain, much like the korean peninsula (because there is ZERO chance of a korean nuke hitting the continental united states).

Fine then, central Tokyo, Hong Kong or Beijing. "In business news today, the Nikkei Index went nuclear and closed permanently". If they really want to cause damage, they shouldn't be going for killing troops anyway. "Hit them where it hurts - their wallets" is as valid as ever. And seriously, if they've somehow managed to build an ultra-modern uranium enrichment plant, one would think that they have the capacity to at least get a missile over to Japan. And yes, I realize that most of Tokyo would still be standing if they nuked it, but wiping out the business district would cause enormous damage to one of the world's largest stock markets. While that technically wouldn't hurt the US directly, it most certainly would hurt the world economy and by extention the US. Hit Hong Kong at the same time and you've made it even worse, at the expense of having the Chinese go apegak at you.

chaos0xomega wrote:You mean the ballistic missiles that have failed on every attempted test? Again, not worried. And it would be only 4000 men.

1. Its not correct.
2. Thats political death for the President that approves it.
3. WTF you mean is only 4000 men?

It's not high on the plan of action, because there is no need for a large scale amphibious operation. An amphibious op would be used as a raid to capture key coastal facilities (the nature of which haven't been disclosed). You don't need a division to conduct such a deep strike op. The main invasion would come from South Korea, supported by airborne insertions to capture key points along the planned invasion route. The majority of ground forces used would be the VERY capable South Korean military, supported by US armored divisions where necessary.

Wait, you're forgetting about the million man army thats flying south.

I'll tell you what's going to happen in North Korea.

Nothing.

This shelling, and the torpedo in March, as just a symptom of tussles inside the top leadership -- the military flexing their muscle to ensure they aren't ignored by the incoming Kim Jong Bong.

The casualties on the ship, and on the island, are very sad. They are much less than a week's road traffic accident fatalities, though. No-one is going to start an invasion because of it.

No-one is going nuclear.

Normal service will be resumed shortly.

This shelling, and the torpedo in March, as just a symptom of tussles inside the top leadership -- the military flexing their muscle to ensure they aren't ignored by the incoming Kim Jong Bong.

I can see what you mean. With an incoming dictator named Kim Jong Bong I'd have self esteem issues too. No one would ever take my militaristic rule seriously when I take orders from that guy!

http://www.theonion.com/articles/kim-jongun-privately-doubting-hes-crazy-enough-to,18374/

Frazzled wrote:Sunk the ships though. Thats all you need to do.
Unimpressive if you're not in the fleet. Damn impressive if you are.
Thats casualties higher than all the landings ever done by the US, combined. if you think thats acceptable, thank God you're not the President.

Might sink ships, if they're sitting still....2000 feet across is awefully small in an open ocean. Moot irregardless as the N. Koreans do not own a missile delivery system. Most of their missiles are Scud Bs that wouldn't carry a nuclear payload to the corner store.

The lightest nuke ever developed had a payload of 23 pounds (the davy crockett) but the N. Koreans do not own technology that would allow them to make a package that small or light. There's a reason fat man and little boy were dropped from a bomber, they were damn heavy (around 10,000 pounds). Yeah, they're not launching anything, anywhere because that's the technology that they're stuck with right now. Fission nukes are cumbersome and heavy which is why the US and Russia switched to Fusion bombs. And their missile tech is laughable to begin with, they can't even hit Alaska and all their recent long-range tests have resulted in failure. Scuds weren't designed for long-range flight, sorry Kim Jong-il, it's back to the drawing board for you.

Here's a linky. Note that the longer range missile ranges are estimates....if the missile succeeded in leaving the launch pad. Also note the payload capacity...not exactly 10,000 pounds. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/missile/index.html

Current estimates by people with fancy sounding titles and a large number of pages sitting on their walls estimate the first N. Korean nuke was a "fizzle" and generated less than a kiloton which would put it on par with some farts I've had. The second test was in the neighborhood of 5-15 kt, much less than the video you put up.

You can take a breath now and quit panicking.

Kilkrazy wrote:I'll tell you what's going to happen in North Korea.

Nothing.

This shelling, and the torpedo in March, as just a symptom of tussles inside the top leadership -- the military flexing their muscle to ensure they aren't ignored by the incoming Kim Jong Bong.

The casualties on the ship, and on the island, are very sad. They are much less than a week's road traffic accident fatalities, though. No-one is going to start an invasion because of it.

No-one is going nuclear.

Normal service will be resumed shortly.

What this ultimately comes down to is that there is nothing at all to gain by responding with force.

A best case scenario would involve North Korea accepting the reply as warranted, a worst case scenario involves escalation to a state of war which neither the South, nor the North, wins.

Since we're supposedly on the less belligerent side of the equation, its basically our mode of being to accept acquiescence as the best of all possible options.

Move aside,
and let the man go through.
Let the man go through.

If I stole
Somebody else's wave
To fly up.

If I rose
Up with the avenue
Behind me.

Some kind of verb.
Some kind of moving thing.
Something unseen.
Some hand is motioning
to rise, to rise, to rise.

Too fat, fat you must cut lean.
You got to take the elevator to the mezzanine,
Chump, change, and it's on, super Jong Bong
Super Jong Bong, Super Jong bong.

And by
The phone
I live
In fear
Sheer Chance
Will draw
You in
To here.

Flashman wrote:Read a good book about civilian life in North Korea recently (in summary, it isn't much fun) and if there was ever a country where the population would be grateful for a US invasion, it's this one. I'm guessing it would be no less of a walkover than Iraq too.

It won't of course happen because a) China and probably Russia wouldn't stand for it and b) South Korea probably wouldn't be too happy about it either because the second the border is lifted, there would be mass migration from the North that the South couldn't cope with.

The South Korean government will accept defectors from the North and there is even a program to help them adjust to the huge change in lifestyle. They can cope with the current drip feed of defectors at present, but have serious concerns about the flood of refugees that they would receive if ever the PDRK regime collapse.

You couldn't be more right about floods, but not of people. The Norks maintain many dams to hold up reservoirs of water to unleash on South Korea when and if there ever is an invasion.

They are believed to have 5 to 8 warheads tops, and these are rather small warheads mind you, the size of the ones we dropped on japan, not the multi-megaton ones the Russkies and US were playing with in the Cold War

To be frank, considering that shiny new facility they just unveiled that you guys had no idea about, I'd err on the side of caution when 'predicting' N.Koreas exact arsenal. Underestimating a foe is a crucial mistake in a war, and one I would hope no general in Washington advising the President would be foolish enough to make.

If there is a landing, its not 100,000 troops, its at best 10,000, most likely less than half of that. The U.S. is not at risk of losing 'an entire army to a nuclear war' in N. Korea. Nor will they 'wipe out half the country.' It would take hundreds of bombs the size of the ones they are playing with to even attempt that.

First off the bat, you're assuming the South Koreans will have the North Koreans on enough of a run that you guys can just come in to mop up, and would only need 10, 000 men. Again, you're underestimating the foe. From what I recall, the North Koreans were having a pretty good time fo it against the Southern Koreans in the last war, ne? This isn't to imply that it would be repeated, but that such underestimation of their military capabilities is a fatal flaw. I doubt you guys would only be needed for the mop up operation.
Secondly, if they're dropping nukes across south korea as well, that'll play havoc with the supply chain, chain of command, and civilian populace, as well as the American forces. If nukes start flying, the South Koreans will be in a damn lot of trouble, and you'd need more than 10, 000 men over there to have a hope of prosecuting a war along those lines successfully.

N. Korea has tested two nuclear weapons, one in '06, one in '09. Both of them were overland tests. The first had an output of about 1 kiloton, the second on is disputed but the most 'liberal' estimates I have seen put it at 20 kilotons. The estimates that came from scientific analysis place it at about 5 kilotons. The footage you have shown are from Operation Crossroads in 1946 (my guess is Test Baker). The warhead used was 23 kilotons. Most of what you see in the image is super-heated steam. It was much more visually impressive than it was destructive. What you see there is roughly 6000 ft high and 2000ft across. Really not all that big, certainly not enough to destroy an entire army.

It's not just the blast you have to consider. Ever heard of fallout? Radiation sickness? And if I drop 10 nukes all in one area? Nuclear weapons are horrible things, even used tactically. I'd hate to have to try and supply and co-ordinate an attack on a city whilst nukes are going off. Or, trying to withdraw your men so you can initiate a countersalvo of the things. Getting men out of hostile warzone with mushroom clouds going off? You'd be risking losing the entire force regardless.

The CIWS/fleet defense systems in place on american naval vessels would make a joke out of anything that tried coming close, and the armies Air Defense Artillery guys would have a field day being able to actually do what they are trained to do for once

Anti-aircraft defense systems are nice, but never a guarantee. We saw enough of that in the Falklands. How much are you prepared to bet on them working 100% of the time? Remember, the N. Koreans only need to get lucky once.

Besides that, the reports from more than a few intelligence services are all suggesting that morale within the military is lower than its been in years, dissent is rapidly spreading, and in some cases is in the open, and that doesn't even begin to account for the people, especially in southern N. Korea, who would do anything to get the hell out of there.

I'd love to know how you have access to all these intelligence service's classified documents. I'd also love to know accurate that intelligence is going to be, considering its alluding to an enemy state. After the Cold War, it was amazing how wildly inaccurate a huge amount of American intelligence actually was.

You're also underestimating the enemy again.

EDIT: And need I point out that in Gulf War 1, we knew Saddam's regime to be in possession of WMD's, but we attacked anyway?

Saddam had nukes? Dayum. I'd better rush this one over to Parliament, everyone over here still thinks all those claims were made up. Where'd you find them?

To be perfectly frank, your underestimation of North Korean capabilities is mildly disturbing , as is your seeming cold blooded sacrifice of thousands(at least, I reckon tens of thousands would be more accurate) of your countrymen for an obscure backwater country none of them care about.
I'm pretty sure all their families would understand exactly why it was necessary, and how unimportant their deaths were in the grand scheme of things if you were to explain it to them though.

Oh, and all those poor korean people suffering from fallout, just because the US decided that small artillery salvo from a nation they're still technically at war with, meant all of them needed to die to justify some kind of obscure American national pride.

I pray to God you never reach any position of authority in America.

Hey Ketara, he did say Gulf War i.e. 1991.

Ah, my mistake there. I withdraw that comment.

I am waiting for the war. The Korean War will end soon mind you, as when Kim Jong Il steps down, some military officials will definitely not want his no experience son running the country. The country will be consumed by war, as many different generals try for control. North Korea hates itself. When the parallel falls and the eager South Korean army rushes in to mop up, there wont be much left. The south Korean economy will feel the hurt, but look at Germany. They turned out fine, right? I think what we really need to think about is not the military, but the civilians. I am sure not all of them support the military, and as this will inevitably lead to a war, I fear and pray for those who's lives will be ruined by the end of the north.

Happygrunt wrote:The south Korean economy will feel the hurt, but look at Germany. They turned out fine, right?

Did you seriously just compare East and West Germany to North and South Korea? The difference between the two is about an order of magnitude and reunification threw Germany's economy into the gakker for a decade and the East is still the bleh side of the country. The economic disaster of reunification for the Koreas would be far, far worse than the Germanys.

Ketara wrote:Ah, my mistake there. I withdraw that comment.

It's all good

Ketara wrote:
To be frank, considering that shiny new facility they just unveiled that you guys had no idea about, I'd err on the side of caution when 'predicting' N.Koreas exact arsenal. Underestimating a foe is a crucial mistake in a war, and one I would hope no general in Washington advising the President would be foolish enough to make.

The key word is that its a uranium enrichment facility. They are using plutonium in their warheads. Making a uranium bomb is a very different animal that even the U.S. had difficulty figuring out way back when.

First off the bat, you're assuming the South Koreans will have the North Koreans on enough of a run that you guys can just come in to mop up, and would only need 10, 000 men. Again, you're underestimating the foe. From what I recall, the North Koreans were having a pretty good time fo it against the Southern Koreans in the last war, ne? This isn't to imply that it would be repeated, but that such underestimation of their military capabilities is a fatal flaw. I doubt you guys would only be needed for the mop up operation.
Secondly, if they're dropping nukes across south korea as well, that'll play havoc with the supply chain, chain of command, and civilian populace, as well as the American forces. If nukes start flying, the South Koreans will be in a damn lot of trouble, and you'd need more than 10, 000 men over there to have a hope of prosecuting a war along those lines successfully.

The North Korean military is a paper tiger, and most of the world knows it. Iraq (during Gulf War 1) boasted a much more intimidating military than North Korea, and we rolled over that like it was non-existent. Outdated tanks, aircraft, barely enough fuel to supply either, piss poor morale, open dissent in the ranks... yeah, no thats not going to do much to us. The only advantage they have is the sheer volume of manpower, but thats an unreliable advantage, as a lot of them are ready to turn tail and run if certain defectors are to be believed. South Korea has a reasonably large, and very capable, highly trained military that will most likely be able to handle the situation on its own, with support from prepositioned US assets. In any case, more than a few US military leaders aren't all that worried about it. As to your comments about the last war, South Korea didn't HAVE a military when the war started, thats why they had such an easy time pushing the small US force that was there back to the sea at Pusan. And I will point out that the US handed it to them pretty handily until the Chicoms started pouring in from the North. They are not a very 'hard' threat on their own.

Anti-aircraft defense systems are nice, but never a guarantee. We saw enough of that in the Falklands. How much are you prepared to bet on them working 100% of the time? Remember, the N. Koreans only need to get lucky once.

Considering ground based CIWS are being used as we speak in Iraq and Afghanistan, very successfully I might add, in order to shoot down incoming mortar shells, about the size of my fist and nowhere near as large as the (non-existant) missile system or aircraft required to haul a nuclear weapon anywhere... I am not worried.

To be perfectly frank, your underestimation of North Korean capabilities is mildly disturbing , as is your seeming cold blooded sacrifice of thousands(at least, I reckon tens of thousands would be more accurate) of your countrymen for an obscure backwater country none of them care about.
I'm pretty sure all their families would understand exactly why it was necessary, and how unimportant their deaths were in the grand scheme of things if you were to explain it to them though.

Oh, and all those poor korean people suffering from fallout, just because the US decided that small artillery salvo from a nation they're still technically at war with, meant all of them needed to die to justify some kind of obscure American national pride.

I pray to God you never reach any position of authority in America.

I fear one thing from North Korea, and one thing only: pre-emptive military action. If they pull the trigger first, then things are going to be a lot worse, and the US will lose a lot more. There won't be anyone suffering from nuclear fallout, except maybe N. Korean citizens that were hit by their own madman of a dictator in some last vain effort to play god. In any case, its the Korean's war, the US is not going to decide when the shooting starts, but we'll be there to help out our ally. And note, nowhere did I ever say that the US should start hostilities. Anything you said to the effect is your insinuation alone. As for a position of authority, its a little late for that, I don't think anyone has been listening to your prayers.

The only people who I think will REALLY suffer, are the poor people of Seoul, who, once the shooting starts, are right in the crosshairs of one hell of a shitstorm.

chaos0xomega wrote:
The key word is that its a uranium enrichment facility. They are using plutonium in their warheads. Making a uranium bomb is a very different animal that even the U.S. had difficulty figuring out way back when.

No, that's wrong. Plutonium and Uranium were both used extensively in the US nuclear weapons program. Notably, Little Boy used uranium exclusively.

There is no reason to assume that this new reactor is not related to the nuclear weapons program.

chaos0xomega wrote:
The North Korean military is a paper tiger, and most of the world knows it. Iraq (during Gulf War 1) boasted a much more intimidating military than North Korea, and we rolled over that like it was non-existent.

Actually, they're quite comparable and the North Korean terrain is far more favorable to defensive warfare.

There's also that giant mine field in the way.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Outdated tanks, aircraft, barely enough fuel to supply either, piss poor morale, open dissent in the ranks... yeah, no thats not going to do much to us.

Where are you getting this information about open dissent in the ranks and poor morale?

chaos0xomega wrote:
The only advantage they have is the sheer volume of manpower, but thats an unreliable advantage, as a lot of them are ready to turn tail and run if certain defectors are to be believed.

All advantages are unreliable. You should look into the success rate of US air strikes on entrenched positions. They aren't very high.

chaos0xomega wrote:
And I will point out that the US handed it to them pretty handily until the Chicoms started pouring in from the North. They are not a very 'hard' threat on their own.

Using 50-year-old data in the course of making an argument regarding military and political matters is a very bad idea.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Considering ground based CIWS are being used as we speak in Iraq and Afghanistan, very successfully I might add, in order to shoot down incoming mortar shells, about the size of my fist and nowhere near as large as the (non-existant) missile system or aircraft required to haul a nuclear weapon anywhere... I am not worried.

Most nuclear weapons don't detonate within range of those types of systems, so using them in this argument is foolish. One effective weapons system does not imply other effective weapons systems.

chaos0xomega wrote:
As for a position of authority, its a little late for that, I don't think anyone has been listening to your prayers.

Considering that your argument is riddled with fallacies I'm going to assume you're not an analyst, or at least haven't had a method review in some time.

Please delete.

The key word is that its a uranium enrichment facility. They are using plutonium in their warheads. Making a uranium bomb is a very different animal that even the U.S. had difficulty figuring out way back when.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with my point, which is, US intelligence is not omniscient. Relying on whatever newspaper report you've read as being absolute hand on heart gospel strikes me as....well, a little silly if I'm honest.

The North Korean military is a paper tiger, and most of the world knows it. Iraq (during Gulf War 1) boasted a much more intimidating military than North Korea, and we rolled over that like it was non-existent. Outdated tanks, aircraft, barely enough fuel to supply either, piss poor morale, open dissent in the ranks... yeah, no thats not going to do much to us. The only advantage they have is the sheer volume of manpower, but thats an unreliable advantage, as a lot of them are ready to turn tail and run if certain defectors are to be believed. South Korea has a reasonably large, and very capable, highly trained military that will most likely be able to handle the situation on its own, with support from prepositioned US assets. In any case, more than a few US military leaders aren't all that worried about it. As to your comments about the last war, South Korea didn't HAVE a military when the war started, thats why they had such an easy time pushing the small US force that was there back to the sea at Pusan. And I will point out that the US handed it to them pretty handily until the Chicoms started pouring in from the North. They are not a very 'hard' threat on their own.

As I said, 'this isn't to imply that it would be repeated'. You seem to have this habit of ignoring the main point I was making, which, to clarify, was 'underestimation of their military capabilities is a fatal flaw'. These people have nuclear weapons. You don't seem to have processed this fact, let alone responded to the second point I made, about how nuclear weapons will pretty much screw up any kind of conventional assault by S. Korea.

Considering ground based CIWS are being used as we speak in Iraq and Afghanistan, very successfully I might add, in order to shoot down incoming mortar shells, about the size of my fist and nowhere near as large as the (non-existant) missile system or aircraft required to haul a nuclear weapon anywhere... I am not worried.

Sure. That's fine. As I said though, they only need to get lucky once.....you have to be lucky all the time.

I fear one thing from North Korea, and one thing only: pre-emptive military action. If they pull the trigger first, then things are going to be a lot worse, and the US will lose a lot more. There won't be anyone suffering from nuclear fallout, except maybe N. Korean citizens that were hit by their own madman of a dictator in some last vain effort to play god. In any case, its the Korean's war, the US is not going to decide when the shooting starts, but we'll be there to help out our ally.

Again, you ignore every single point I made to go off on a tangent. To reiterate my points:-

1. You are underestimating everything to do with N. Korea.
2. You are quite cold blooded about the deaths of many, many American soldiers, over a backwater Asian country. This is not necessarily a bad trait in a higher level general, and doesn't bother me particularly as a War Studies student. What does is how you'll quite happily commit them to death in a scenario in which there is absolutely no gain for the US.
3. You ignore just how catastrophic a dozen nuclear weapons dropping across the Korean peninsula would be, in terms of fallout, radiation, and actual deaths. The nuclear weapons are not necessarily limited to just N. Korea, as has been pointed out several times now, by me and other posters.

And note, nowhere did I ever say that the US should start hostilities. Anything you said to the effect is your insinuation alone.

Ermmm...... To quote you:-

Anyway, I think its time we finished this war.

That reads as being pretty in favour of the US starting hostilities. If you disagree, you need to be far more careful with how you write, as that is how it reads.

As for a position of authority, its a little late for that, I don't think anyone has been listening to your prayers.

Is this where you get to imply that you're a Brigadier General in the US Army? Usually, I wouldn't rule out the possibility of someone being what they claim, but your woeful ignorance with regards to the real effects of a nuclear exchange, and blatant underestimation of N. Korea's capabiltiies allow me to in this case. Sorry, but as someone who's actually studying these kind of things, I cannot believe someone who argues what you do would ever climb the command chain that high.

EDIT: Ah, a little digging reveals you be an Engineering student with aspirations of joining the US air force. So not quite the lofty position you'd have me believe with that statement.

It seems to me that there are elements of truth to both sides of this devolving debate.

The primary lesson of Iraq is that the US military is just wonderful at winning large scale armed conflicts. I have no doubt we'd do that same thing to the DPRK. Day two they'd have three tanks and a broken down Mig 21 left.

And then they'd start sending out "national glory brigades" of bomb-jacket clad children, or half their country would starve to death, and we'd all be wondering "wait, why were we doing this again? I didn't want to blow up kids..."

The reason not to attack the DPRK isn't because we wouldn't win, or because they have nukes. We would win immediately, I doubt they'd have the wherewithal to use them.

The reason to not attack the DPRK is because doing so would help absolutely nobody involved. The possibility of nuclear deployment is miniscule, but just turns "nobody wins" into "everybody TOTALLY loses."

Because, let's be honest.. If the DPRK set off a nuke ANYWHERE it would not stop the US, and it WOULD make us forget all about our fancy, high-minded ideals for long enough to kill everyone in that country.

Which, AGAIN, not good for anybody involved.

Phryxis wrote:It seems to me that there are elements of truth to both sides of this devolving debate.

The primary lesson of Iraq is that the US military is just wonderful at winning large scale armed conflicts. I have no doubt we'd do that same thing to the DPRK. Day two they'd have three tanks and a broken down Mig 21 left.

And then they'd start sending out "national glory brigades" of bomb-jacket clad children, or half their country would starve to death, and we'd all be wondering "wait, why were we doing this again? I didn't want to blow up kids..."

The reason not to attack the DPRK isn't because we wouldn't win, or because they have nukes. We would win immediately, I doubt they'd have the wherewithal to use them.

The reason to not attack the DPRK is because doing so would help absolutely nobody involved. The possibility of nuclear deployment is miniscule, but just turns "nobody wins" into "everybody TOTALLY loses."

Because, let's be honest.. If the DPRK set off a nuke ANYWHERE it would not stop the US, and it WOULD make us forget all about our fancy, high-minded ideals for long enough to kill everyone in that country.

Which, AGAIN, not good for anybody involved.

I agree with everything said there. I simply postulate that the US would never risk that miniscule chance(be it 0.000001% or lower) of the N. Koreans going out in a blaze of glory, as there's nothing in it for them, and far too much to lose for everyone involved.

Frazzled wrote:Wait, you're forgetting about the million man army thats flying south.

Hang on, are you actually thinking that North Korea has an army worth a damn? They don't. They really, really don't. Last time around they performed very well because they attacked a corrupt dictatorship. But it's been a long time, South Korea has flourished into an industrial nation with an effective army, while North Korea has sunk further into corruption, and as a result their army is barely fed, let alone properly equipped.

North Korea has two things going for it. It has a load of artillery pieces in range of Seoul, and it has some nukes that it will be able to deliver across short range, with minimal accuracy. This would be enough to kill loads more people in Seoul, but it would do bugger all to prevent North Korea being quickly occupied by South Korea, even without support from other nations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ketara wrote:First off the bat, you're assuming the South Koreans will have the North Koreans on enough of a run that you guys can just come in to mop up, and would only need 10, 000 men. Again, you're underestimating the foe. From what I recall, the North Koreans were having a pretty good time fo it against the Southern Koreans in the last war, ne?

The South Korea of the time was a corrupt dictatorship, with little support from the population. This is wholly different to South Korea today. At the same time, North Korea has become a much weaker foe, more insane, and no longer able to rely on supplies from the USSR. In fact, much of North Koreas equipment is still stuff supplied by the USSR and China, and is many decades old.

The complicating factor is the devestation that could be inflicted on Seoul.

Anti-aircraft defense systems are nice, but never a guarantee. We saw enough of that in the Falklands. How much are you prepared to bet on them working 100% of the time? Remember, the N. Koreans only need to get lucky once.

Out of how many bombs? They have a handful at most. They're not going to be launching them off at US military groups in the hope they'll be lucky enough that it is on target and that it gets through US defences. No, they're going to be launched at big, easy targets - US cities.

I'd love to know how you have access to all these intelligence service's classified documents. I'd also love to know accurate that intelligence is going to be, considering its alluding to an enemy state. After the Cold War, it was amazing how wildly inaccurate a huge amount of American intelligence actually was.

Um, people can travel to North Korea. This stuff is hardly secret.

You're also underestimating the enemy again.

Being cautious is nice but when a toddler fights a heavyweight champion there really is only one outcome.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phryxis wrote:It seems to me that there are elements of truth to both sides of this devolving debate.

The primary lesson of Iraq is that the US military is just wonderful at winning large scale armed conflicts. I have no doubt we'd do that same thing to the DPRK. Day two they'd have three tanks and a broken down Mig 21 left.

And then they'd start sending out "national glory brigades" of bomb-jacket clad children, or half their country would starve to death, and we'd all be wondering "wait, why were we doing this again? I didn't want to blow up kids..."

I'm not certain there'd be much civilian resistance. Note that in Iraq there were few suicide bombers dying to protect the old government, that came from extremist Muslim groups vying for power in the new state. The parallel is really much more like Japan.

The reason to not attack the DPRK is because doing so would help absolutely nobody involved. The possibility of nuclear deployment is miniscule, but just turns "nobody wins" into "everybody TOTALLY loses."

I agree, nukes or no, there'd be loads of dead people in Seoul. And that's a hell of a lot to lose for little gain. Nah, until North Korea flips out entirely and launches an invasion, or collapses and needs intervention to prevent mass starvation, there'll be no movement on the border.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Happygrunt wrote:I am waiting for the war. The Korean War will end soon mind you, as when Kim Jong Il steps down, some military officials will definitely not want his no experience son running the country. The country will be consumed by war, as many different generals try for control. North Korea hates itself. When the parallel falls and the eager South Korean army rushes in to mop up, there wont be much left. The south Korean economy will feel the hurt, but look at Germany. They turned out fine, right? I think what we really need to think about is not the military, but the civilians. I am sure not all of them support the military, and as this will inevitably lead to a war, I fear and pray for those who's lives will be ruined by the end of the north.

That's what we waiting for when Kim Jong Il took over. I don't know why it's any more likely to happen this time.

This is wholly different to South Korea today.

Simply remind them that there is no Starcraft allowed in the DPRK. Instant zealots.

The parallel is really much more like Japan.

I don't mean to imply that there would be an Iraq-like insurgency, I more mean to point out that being able to kick the crap out of people militarily doesn't result in immediate goodness. That's why I add the "starve to death" angle. Even if the populace was happy to capitulate, something totally miserable would occur that could not be destroyed with precision smartbombs.

I agree, nukes or no, there'd be loads of dead people in Seoul.

Meh, I'd be somewhat surprised if the DPRK could do much to the South if the US was involved in force. We win open combat immediately and decisively. It's more a problem of us having no real answers after that.

The F-22 Raptor is a stealth aircraft capable of supersonic cruising speeds and numerous generations ahead of anything the DPRK will field.

But, it is not edible.