North Korea... We are going to war aren't we?

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.

**dogma**

chaos0xomega wrote:
1. We're (or at least I am) talking about airpower in regards to ending an artillery threat to one city. You don't NEED to annihilate the North Korean military, you need to annihilate a few key sites. The rest of it is mostly legwork.

No, you need to eliminate a lot more than a few key sites. If it were just a matter of a few key sites the artillery threat to Seoul wouldn't be an issue for consideration at all.

chaos0xomega wrote:
2. I have megabytes upon megabytes of hardened reinforced concrete structures that the Iraqis were using in GW1. You want to tell me that they used sandbag bunkers again?

It doesn't matter. The point is that it took a month to eliminate 40% of the Iraqi combat force's vehicles, and most of those were lost when they attempted offensive maneuvers in Kuwait. The rate of success for strikes on defended targets was only around 20%; eliminating about 10% of all defensive units when the air campaign concluded.

chaos0xomega wrote:
3. Katyushas are innacurate, and take a long time to reload. They also have the nasty sideeffect of leaving a nice smoketrail for you to follow.

Inaccuracy doesn't really matter when you're aiming a city as densely populated as Seoul.

chaos0xomega wrote:
And once again, unless I am mistaken, that doesn't give us a success rate, that gives total force impact. That could very well be (though I doubt it, mainly because I know better) a 100% success rate, if during the 78 days, coalition airpower was only tasked with destroying 14 tanks, 18 apcs, and 20 artillery pieces.

That's not how success rates work. Success rates reference the rate at which a given number of strikes can be expected to succeed in hitting their targets. If you don't factor in the number of strikes required, then all "success rates" would be 100% given sufficient time, which doesn't tell us anything at all.

chaos0xomega wrote:
I think this is the crux of the matter. Between the S. Koreans and US air assets on hand, I have no doubt that we have enough,

See, that's your problem, you're certain of something. Certainty is basically just shorthand for not thinking hard enough.

chaos0xomega wrote:
And the chances of them ALL being mobilized to destroy one city is nonexistant (unless Kim Jong Who has really gone totally insane).

It doesn't have to be all of them. It just needs to be enough of them to present a credible threat which isn't easily countered.

More to the point, you've already negated your initial premise that total mobilization against Seoul cannot happen by providing a possibility that indicates that it can. This should make you uncertain.

**SlaveToDorkness**

Medium of Death wrote: Just because they are a by-product of war doesn't mean they should be disregarded as 'Inevitable'.

[youtube]

[/youtube]

**dogma**

chaos0xomega wrote:
He did say 'death of any sort'. That little phrase makes your argument pointless IMO (but to answer your question, of course I would rather go up against the weakened force).

I mean, obviously we all risk death merely by being alive, but that's simply a contingent necessity.

You've got to remember that valuation is what determines necessity. If you sufficiently value the military, and the concept of being an infantryman, then you have to accept a certain sort of death risk.

If you don't value those things, then you don't have to risk that sort of death.

In any case, Ahtman correctly identified the central point of the argument as necessity.

Why do we need to attack North Korea?

**chaos0xomega**

North Korea has nukes. Were the russians going to drop holy hand grenades or did you forget one of the biggest points of contention?

North Korea has a couple dozen nuclear weapons, tops. It doesn't have a proven, viable method for delivering them, and even if they did, their weapons are jokes compared to the output of the multi-megaton warheads the US and Soviets would have been slinging around.

Why do we need to attack North Korea?

Ostensibly because they attacked South Korea (our ally which we have sworn to defend). In any case, nobody is talking about attacking North Korea, we're talking about defending South Korea.

No, you need to eliminate a lot more than a few key sites. If it were just a matter of a few key sites the artillery threat to Seoul wouldn't be an issue for consideration at all.

Semantics. There are known North Korean artillery sites, these are the ones you concern yourself with, followed by any other locations that N. Korean artillery decides to set up shop. They are few in relation to the area of the country.

It doesn't matter. The point is that it took a month to eliminate 40% of the Iraqi combat force's vehicles, and most of those were lost when they attempted offensive maneuvers in Kuwait. The rate of success for strikes on defended targets was only around 20%; eliminating about 10% of all defensive units when the air campaign concluded.

Sources please?

Inaccuracy doesn't really matter when you're aiming a city as densely populated as Seoul.

Irrelevant when the other deficiencies of the Katyusha are taken into consideration.

That's not how success rates work. Success rates reference the rate at which a given number of strikes can be expected to succeed in hitting their targets. If you don't factor in the number of strikes required, then all "success rates" would be 100% given sufficient time, which doesn't tell us anything at all.

I'm sorry I don't think I'm following, in any case I know what a success rate is, thank you.

More to the point, you've already negated your initial premise that total mobilization against Seoul cannot happen by providing a possibility that indicates that it can. This should make you uncertain.

Errr... what? It WON'T happen. Stop waxing philosophical, you know as well as I do that marching a million man army at Seoul is as ridiculous a proposition as they come.

**Miguelsan**

Before pointing out that the Katyushas can not reach Seoul check the weapon system type. The ones you pointed out were the WW2 models not the BM-21 or BM-27 in North Korea´s arsenal with ranges up to 40km depending on the warhead. So, yes the Katyushas can reach Seoul and, unless you have planes within range able to bombard, drive away before you can get the whole battery.

Are the North Koreans insane enough to go to war? I don´t think so but sometimes when countries are playing chicken they misgauge the opponents response like Hitler in Poland or Japan after Pearl Harbor.

M.

**chaos0xomega**

Miguelsan wrote:Before pointing out that the Katyushas can not reach Seoul check the weapon system type. The ones you pointed out were the WW2 models not the BM-21 or BM-27 in North Korea´s arsenal with ranges up to 40km depending on the warhead. So, yes the Katyushas can reach Seoul and unless you have planes within range able to bombard and drive away before you can get the whole battery.

Ah, so they can, my bad.

**dogma**

chaos0xomega wrote:
Ostensibly because they attacked South Korea (our ally which we have sworn to defend). In any case, nobody is talking about attacking North Korea, we're talking about defending South Korea.

Wait, what? Did you not write in your first post that it was "time to end the Korean war", or something very similar?

chaos0xomega wrote:
Semantics. There are known North Korean artillery sites, these are the ones you concern yourself with, followed by any other locations that N. Korean artillery decides to set up shop. They are few in relation to the area of the country.

So are the number of soldiers relative to the population of South Korea, but those troops that are in South Korea are still important.

Also, that's not an issue of semantics. Its an issue of you dismissing something without legitimate cause. An issue of semantic would imply that referring to something as "few" or "many" is not a substantive difference, unless you're discussing semantic in the proper, and not the colloquial, sense.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Sources please?

I asked you if you have Jstore access before, but you didn't answer.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Irrelevant when the other deficiencies of the Katyusha are taken into consideration.

What disadvantages? That it can be subject to counter-battery fire like any other artillery system?

But no, that's not irrelevant at all, if it were you wouldn't have addressed the matter of accuracy at all. You seem to be allowing your masculinity to get the better of you, it isn't leading you to make forceful arguments.

chaos0xomega wrote:
I'm sorry I don't think I'm following, in any case I know what a success rate is, thank you.

No, you believe that you do, but your belief is incorrect as demonstrated by your behavior.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Errr... what? It WON'T happen. Stop waxing philosophical, you know as well as I do that marching a million man army at Seoul is as ridiculous a proposition as they come.

That's not what we were discussing. We were discussing artillery being tasked to strike Seoul, and you said it couldn't happen unless Kim Jong Il is insane, which he may be. As such it could come to pass that Kim Jong Il tasks all artillery to strike Seoul.

That's not waxing philosophical, that's expecting people to utilize words correctly. The phrase "highly unlikey" does not mean "impossible".

**Stormrider**

I laugh at all of this optimist generalship. "if they're right here, we'll take care of it with airpower". Don't you just maybe think the enemy is using that as a mis-direction? Wouldn't they have planned for that already? Static warfare has been outdated for 100 years for a reason.

Shelling Soeul is psychological in it's threat more than it is strategic. It certainly is a hub of communications trade, government and the military. A prime target for attack, but I can't imagine the ROK would so many eggs in one basket so close to North Korea's border without a major contingency plan. That makes no sense at all.

**chaos0xomega**

Something ain't jiving in our attempts to communicate here. You know what, you win, whatever. You and I can argue until kingdom come about what will happen, but until something happens, its meaningless.

At the end of the day, there is no reason that can or will conclusively stop two nations from going go to war. You can argue about economic ties this, social structure that, pointlessness, whatever, but history has shown that to not be the case more than once.

**dogma**

chaos0xomega wrote:
At the end of the day, there is no reason that can or will conclusively stop two nations from going go to war. You can argue about economic ties this, social structure that, pointlessness, whatever, but history has shown that to not be the case more than once.

Well, yeah. Average people are average and stupid people are stupid, unfortunately they tend to be average with respect to one thing and stupid with respect to another, or possess value sets that aren't similar to those of others.

Stating that something shouldn't be done has no bearing on whether or not it will be done.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stormrider wrote:A prime target for attack, but I can't imagine the ROK would so many eggs in one basket so close to North Korea's border without a major contingency plan. That makes no sense at all.

See, this is why the idea of "winning" wars needs to be burnt out of our collective memory.

**Stormrider**

dogma wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
At the end of the day, there is no reason that can or will conclusively stop two nations from going go to war. You can argue about economic ties this, social structure that, pointlessness, whatever, but history has shown that to not be the case more than once.

Well, yeah. Average people are average and stupid people are stupid, unfortunately they tend to be average with respect to one thing and stupid with respect to another, or possess value sets that aren't similar to those of others.

Stating that something shouldn't be done has no bearing on whether or not it will be done.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stormrider wrote:A prime target for attack, but I can't imagine the ROK would so many eggs in one basket so close to North Korea's border without a major contingency plan. That makes no sense at all.

See, this is why the idea of "winning" wars needs to be burnt out of our collective memory.

Definitely, "winning" for North Korea would be killing as many South Koreans as possible before they're scraped off the globe by other nations. Winning is a relative condition in a conflict.

**dogma**

What I'm saying is that winning isn't really important because we can win regardless of the conditions imposed.

In essence, if we want to get lots of people in Seoul killed, then winning is pretty easy.

**sebster**

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:I take it that you have little concept of the difference between an artillery salvo and carpet bombing.

You seem to think that establishing that casualties will be in the low thousands somehow means that they shouldn't be the primary concern of engagement. That's not a very sensible, or humane thing.

No I do not have first hand experience of suffering such attacks.
My parents however did.
And unlike you sprogs some of us have grown up through the Cold War where there was potentially a damned sight more explosives aimed our way than will ever fall on Seoul.

So? Therefore there's no problem with thousands of people in Seoul being killed in artillery bombardments?

Stop being such drama queens.

That's not constructive, nor an accurate description of this thread. Do better.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:Yeah, nothing will come of this until china finally abandons them.

Abandonment isn't the aim. Don't forget the West also gives heavily in food aid. There's been a lot of US aid, even private US aid from churches, into North Korea (sometimes the North Koreans even invent reasons to arrest the people bringing food over, claiming their trying to sneak Christian teachings in, because the North Korean government really are spiteful dicks).

The issue is that North Korea is dependant on that aid to prevent collapse, and see acting up as the best way to get more. China is now more or less aligned with the West on this issue, and it appears similarly at a loss as to how to stop North Korea acting up, without driving them into collapse.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stormrider wrote:Shelling Soeul is psychological in it's threat more than it is strategic. It certainly is a hub of communications trade, government and the military. A prime target for attack, but I can't imagine the ROK would so many eggs in one basket so close to North Korea's border without a major contingency plan. That makes no sense at all.

It would make more sense for the hostage taker to point the gun at the SWAT team, as they're the guys he's going to have to kill to get out of the room. Except of course, the hostage taker knows he can't kill a dozen SWAT guys by himself, so he point the gun at the head of his hostage to force concessions from the police.

Similarly, North Korea points a load of artillery at Seoul and says 'give us more aid and puff up our ego or we'll do something very silly'.

**Stormrider**

Good point Seb, the only reason I didn't go there is because I was talking in a Strategic Context. Your analogy is quite apt however.

**reds8n**

from this weekend..

A mass exodus of North Korean workers from the Far East of Russia is under way, according to reports coming out of the region. As the two Koreas edged towards the brink of war this week, it appears that the workers in Russia have been called back to aid potential military operations.

Vladnews agency, based in Vladivostok, reported that North Korean workers had left the town of Nakhodka en masse shortly after the escalation of tension on the Korean peninsula earlier this week. "Traders have left the kiosks and markets, workers have abandoned building sites, and North Korean secret service employees working in the region have joined them and left," the agency reported.

Russia's migration service said that there were over 20,000 North Koreans in Russia at the beginning of 2010, of which the vast majority worked in construction. The workers are usually chaperoned by agents from Kim Jong-il's security services and have little contact with the world around them. Defectors have suggested that the labourers work 13-hour days and that most of their pay is sent back to the government in Pyongyang. Hundreds of workers have fled the harsh conditions and live in hiding in Russia, constantly in fear of being deported back to North Korea.

"North Korea's government sends thousands of its citizens to Russia to earn money, most of which is funnelled through government accounts," says Simon Ostrovsky, a journalist who discovered secret North Korean logging camps in the northern Siberian taiga. "Workers are often sent to remote locations for years at a time to work long hours and get as little as three days off per year." Now it appears that some kind of centralised order has been given for the workers to return home.

Russia's Pacific port of Vladivostok is thousands of miles and seven time zones from Moscow, but only around 100 miles from the country's heavily controlled border with North Korea. In 1996, a diplomat from the South Korean consulate in the city was murdered with a poisoned pencil, in what was widely believed to be a hit carried out by the North's secret agents. There are even two North Korean restaurants in the city. It is not known how many of the workers in other Russian towns have been called back to their homeland this week, or whether the exodus is permanent or temporary.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/expats-recalled-as-north-korea-prepares-for-war-2145018.html

" the labourers work 13-hour days and that most of their pay is sent back to the government in Pyongyang " and you thought your income tax was high eh ?!

**Stormrider**

reds8n wrote:from this weekend..

A mass exodus of North Korean workers from the Far East of Russia is under way, according to reports coming out of the region. As the two Koreas edged towards the brink of war this week, it appears that the workers in Russia have been called back to aid potential military operations.

Vladnews agency, based in Vladivostok, reported that North Korean workers had left the town of Nakhodka en masse shortly after the escalation of tension on the Korean peninsula earlier this week. "Traders have left the kiosks and markets, workers have abandoned building sites, and North Korean secret service employees working in the region have joined them and left," the agency reported.

Russia's migration service said that there were over 20,000 North Koreans in Russia at the beginning of 2010, of which the vast majority worked in construction. The workers are usually chaperoned by agents from Kim Jong-il's security services and have little contact with the world around them. Defectors have suggested that the labourers work 13-hour days and that most of their pay is sent back to the government in Pyongyang. Hundreds of workers have fled the harsh conditions and live in hiding in Russia, constantly in fear of being deported back to North Korea.

"North Korea's government sends thousands of its citizens to Russia to earn money, most of which is funnelled through government accounts," says Simon Ostrovsky, a journalist who discovered secret North Korean logging camps in the northern Siberian taiga. "Workers are often sent to remote locations for years at a time to work long hours and get as little as three days off per year." Now it appears that some kind of centralised order has been given for the workers to return home.

Russia's Pacific port of Vladivostok is thousands of miles and seven time zones from Moscow, but only around 100 miles from the country's heavily controlled border with North Korea. In 1996, a diplomat from the South Korean consulate in the city was murdered with a poisoned pencil, in what was widely believed to be a hit carried out by the North's secret agents. There are even two North Korean restaurants in the city. It is not known how many of the workers in other Russian towns have been called back to their homeland this week, or whether the exodus is permanent or temporary.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/expats-recalled-as-north-korea-prepares-for-war-2145018.html

" the labourers work 13-hour days and that most of their pay is sent back to the government in Pyongyang " and you thought your income tax was high eh ?!

Aww gak, here it comes.

**agnosto**

reds8n wrote:
" the labourers work 13-hour days and that most of their pay is sent back to the government in Pyongyang " and you thought your income tax was high eh ?!

Interesting read. Until recently there was a cross-border, joint economic project in Kaesong until the N. Koreans demanded something like a 3000% increase in rents and wages (which the government kept most of).

The country is strapped for hard currency so it is interesting that they would call back workers that are providing it. Then again, they do like to rattle their sabre and aren't above shooting themselves in the foot just to try and make people think they're preparing for something.

**reds8n**

It was something of an eye opener. I'd heard/read something..somewhere... before about them having workers abroad, but I didn't think it was that many.

meanwhile....

nother cable relays a discussion over an official lunch in February 2010 between former South Korean Vice Foreign Minister Chun Yung-woo and the US ambassador to Seoul, Kathleen Stephens.

The minister is said to have revealed that a new, younger generation of Chinese leaders no longer regarded North Korea as a useful or reliable ally, and would not risk renewed armed conflict on the peninsula.

Mr Chun confidently had predicted that North Korea "had already collapsed economically and would collapse politically two to three years after the death of Kim Jong-il", despite his efforts to obtain Chinese help and to secure the succession for his son, Ms Stephens wrote

Describing a generational difference in Chinese attitudes toward North Korea, Chun claimed [name redacted] believed Korea should be unified under ROK [Republic of Korea] control," she added.

Mr Chun said the Chinese officials "were ready to 'face the new reality' that the DPRK [Democratic People's Republic of Korea] now had little value to China as a buffer state - a view that since North Korea's 2006 nuclear test had reportedly gained traction among senior PRC [People's Republic of China] leaders."

"Chun argued that in the event of a North Korean collapse, China would clearly 'not welcome' any US military presence north of the DMZ [Demilitarised Zone]," the ambassador's message said.

"The PRC would be comfortable with a reunified Korea controlled by Seoul and anchored to the United States in a 'benign alliance' - as long as Korea was not hostile towards China," it added

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11871641

It would seem likely that any reunified Korea would be far too busy for quite soem time to go picking a fight with China

If any reunification did happen... wow.. that would be worth seeing. Germany had an awkward time when it was "fixed"... but the differences between N and S Korea ( generally) would make that look like nothing.

**Peter Wiggin**

Check out this video...first in a series of 3. Sean from VBS bribes the right people and gets a camera into North Korea...its really really crazy.

http://www.vbs.tv/watch/the-vice-guide-to-travel/vice-guide-to-north-korea-1-of-3

**Emperors Faithful**

sebster wrote:
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:No I do not have first hand experience of suffering such attacks.
My parents however did.
And unlike you sprogs some of us have grown up through the Cold War where there was potentially a damned sight more explosives aimed our way than will ever fall on Seoul.

So? Therefore there's no problem with thousands of people in Seoul being killed in artillery bombardments?

After all, what's the worst that could happen?

reds8n wrote:If any reunification did happen... wow.. that would be worth seeing. Germany had an awkward time when it was "fixed"... but the differences between N and S Korea ( generally) would make that look like nothing.

Would it really be that bad? I mean, is North Korea in a state of collapse or...well I don't know how bad things are really.

**reds8n**

... err... yes.

It would almost be like like two countries from separate centuries suddenly being thrown together.

**Albatross**

reds8n wrote:
Russia's Pacific port of Vladivostok is thousands of miles and seven time zones from Moscow, but only around 100 miles from the country's heavily controlled border with North Korea. In 1996, a diplomat from the South Korean consulate in the city was murdered with a poisoned pencil, in what was widely believed to be a hit carried out by the North's secret agents. There are even two North Korean restaurants in the city.

Am I the only one wondering what would be served in a North Korean restaurant?

**filbert**

Albatross wrote:
reds8n wrote:
Russia's Pacific port of Vladivostok is thousands of miles and seven time zones from Moscow, but only around 100 miles from the country's heavily controlled border with North Korea. In 1996, a diplomat from the South Korean consulate in the city was murdered with a poisoned pencil, in what was widely believed to be a hit carried out by the North's secret agents. There are even two North Korean restaurants in the city.

Am I the only one wondering what would be served in a North Korean restaurant?

At the risk of national stereotyping, I bet that's one city that doesn't need a dog pound

**Kilkrazy**

North Korea is a hell hole for nearly the whole population. Millions starved to death when the economy broke in the 1990s. They kinda recovered from that, but still only limp by on foreign aid.

Only the top leadership have any decent standard of living and they must live in a state of constant plotting and paranoia that rivals Imperial Rome.

**gorgon**

**reds8n**

gorgon wrote:

These "Next Top Model.." shows are really going downhill aren't they ?

**Chibi Bodge-Battle**

Shuma
Star wars doesn't count.

I was responding to the shallow and inaccurate assertion that because I don't live under the threat of shelling that my points were invalid.
My parents' first hand testimony of what aerial bombardment is like trumps patronising arm chair hypothesis from someone living in a country with no such experience.

Does NK have sarin gas?

The point is still valid. NK won't shell Seoul.
And yes, if you read my earlier comments, you will see that I am of the opinion that China should pull its finger out of its puzzle and wag it very sternly in the direction of Kim Jong-il.

**Frazzled**

Evidently the Wiki leaks notes China's switching to being ok with North Korea falling. NK's leadership should be wailing like a baby right now and calling Vietnam.

"Er how do you open up again?"

**Xenon**

**agnosto**

Ask Russia, commies (and dictators) love a good military parade.

....and that girl about the 1:53 mark is probably in a concentration camp now for smiling.