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.

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.

I STILL think it's not to be done.

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.

Politics is one of the biggest reasons for the outcomes of the Korean and Vietnamese wars in the first place, so you can't entirely dismiss it.

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.

The A-10 has been blowing things up for the last 9 years. Not sure were you are getting your info from.

Not the ones in ROK.

Plus, to be fair, there hasn't been much good to blow up in Iraq/Afghanistan for a good 5 years.

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?

They just did.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/11/27/3078142.htm

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.

Also here's an interesting article about North Korean artillery capabilities and planned responses: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/weapons/north-korea-conflict-weapons-available?src=rss

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.

dogma wrote:

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.

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....

There has been nothing on the BBC news about China as in Avantgarde's ABC News linky.

Has there been any more aid about China?

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:There has been nothing on the BBC news about China as in Avantgarde's ABC News linky.

Has there been any more said about China?

Hot off the press... apparently

http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article919775.ece?homepage=true

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.