Korea

[Humodour]

Ironically you could cream NK if you launched a pre-emptive attack. I would imagine the US Navy has enough air assets to take out most NK arty in situ. Sadly, we are now wusses in the West and will await the NK to attack first.

I predict that you will one day do something illegal so I am fining you now. Because I am manly and not a wuss.

 

NK isn't potentially going to do illegal and evil things in the future; it is doing them now and has done them repeatedly in the past.

 

So your analogy is completely idiotic.

[Hildegard]

If NK's army was as powerful as you NK propagandists would ahve us to believe, they'd have already conquered SK . Afterall, the US and others are no match for them right? RIGHT? So, why can't NK just take over the world sicne they are so unstoppable? Huh?

 

I mean, having the ability to sink one modern sub, and lob some bombs is just amazing proof of one's military dominace. I guess.

 

I'm trying to see questions here in the vast see of sarcasm. For starters I didn't say the US is no match for the NK nor do I think so. What I'm saying is the US can't just come with couple of bomber squadrons and take out NK missiles and artillery in one or two strikes and yeeee victory for the US!!! Such an act, any such act would mean an open war between the two Korea's. In the first Korean war the US saved its ally or the SK would have been defeated. The US forces stationed there ensured the stalemate endures all these years, without the US forces being there I believe that in some point the NK would attack. I was not implying that the NK military is so powerful they can wipe of SK while holding their breath. NK knows that the US is determined to defended SK and I believe they would lose if they invaded and primarily for some totally other reasons from those of military strength. On the other hand if the US tried to invade NK like Iraq, the current state of the US military having sorties in Iraq and Afghanistan just couldn't carry it out. I believe in this mess there couldn't just be a limited skirmish with any significant victories or goals achieved for the US or SK, just death and destruction for both NK and SK.

[Humodour]

I came because I was starving and our country is in a hard way, but I still believe in / love Kim Jong Il, and I wish I could go back if things worked out

 

A nice mix of brainwashing and Stockholm syndrome NK has going there.

[Nepenthe]

I remember digging trenches in Westphalia in 1988 as part of NATO exercises simulating a SOVIET INVAYSHUN!

 

LOL. Can't wait to tell the kids about that one.

 

Anyway, we had lovingly crafted ORBATS of the enemy disposition showing legions of Russki death-dealers. Our AT platoons were told chilling stories about the reactive armour capabilty of the T-80 and the squadrons of attack helis driven by commie robots that would hand us our asses if doomsday ever came.

 

Air defence in Finland was still scared of those same choppers in 2004. It's probably institutional, minimum effective distance for missiles and all that.

[Rostere]

NK simply wouldn't have the resources to fight a war. Sure, they could cause massive damage to civilians. But if you just look at the resources they have on paper, without foreign aid, very large parts of their population would be starving to death very fast. I've already stated that the reason a war can not be fought is that it would lead to massive civilian casualties, and also millions of refugees. Every war would eventually lead to the inevitable collapse of the North Korean state, however. North Korea has no chance of winning an offensive war against anyone, all they can do is hold South Korea hostage and threaten to mistreat it's own population.

[Humodour]

As always, the ABC has a good run-down of the situation:

 

China has been working to keep tensions between North and South Korea from escalating following a Northern artillery attack on the South on Tuesday.

 

China's foreign minister Yang Jiechi has met North Korea's ambassador and spoken on the phone to his US and South Korean counterparts.

 

Officials say China's priority is to avoid a recurrence of Tuesday's attack on Yeonpyeong island which killed four people.

 

Tomorrow the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS George Washington, with its 75 planes and crew of 6,000, will take part in massive naval war games.

 

North Korea has warned this will push the region to the brink of war and is threatening to launch fresh attacks if it is sufficiently provoked.

 

But it is playing a dangerous game. This week it killed four South Koreans in an artillery attack and in March it torpedoed a South Korean naval ship killing 46 sailors.

 

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.

 

The North may have gone too far this time. But if it keeps resorting to military strikes out of the blue it will eventually lead to a more brutal response from Seoul.

 

Adding nuclear weapons into the mix, the deadly standoff is well short of being resolved.

 

China has also voiced its displeasure at the participation of a United States aircraft carrier battle group in tomorrow's war games.

 

But South Korea and its American allies are keen to put on a show of strength.

 

The North yesterday started firing fresh volleys of artillery two days ahead of the war games, sending South Korean residents who remain on Yeonpyeong Island running to air raid shelters.

 

The sound of fresh rounds of artillery emanating from North Korea led to fears of a fresh attack.

 

But the South Korean Government has said that this seemed to be a training exercise and that no shells landed on its territory.

 

Tensions high

 

US commander in South Korea, General Walter Sharp, has called on North Korea to stop its attacks.

 

"What I've seen here is basically North Korea attacked this island, which is a clear violation of the armistice agreement," he said.

 

"We and the United Nations command will investigate this completely and will call on North Korea to stop any future attacks."

 

The hope is that Pyongyang's warning is just aggressive rhetoric from the North, but the South is bolstering its troop numbers in border regions just in case.

 

The South Korean government of Lee Myungbak has been criticised, even by some in its own party, for not responding to this week's artillery attack with enough force.

 

This is despite the fact that it fired 80 shells back across the border at the time. There has been no information about what damage this caused in the North.

 

South Korea's former defence minister Kim Yae-yong defended the decision not to call an airstrike on the North's artillery positions that fired on Yeonpyong, saying he did not want to risk starting a full-scale war.

 

He has now resigned, accepting full responsibility for what has been described as an inadequate response.

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/11...?section=justin

Edited November 27, 2010 by Krezack

[Volourn]

"What I'm saying is the US can't just come with couple of bomber squadrons and take out NK missiles and artillery in one or two strikes and yeeee victory for the US!!!"

 

Who claimed they could?

[Humodour]

"What I'm saying is the US can't just come with couple of bomber squadrons and take out NK missiles and artillery in one or two strikes and yeeee victory for the US!!!"

 

Who claimed they could?

 

It's certainly not as easy as that sentence makes it sound. It's not exactly something the Americans would find difficult, either, however.

 

Pretty much the only thing that would be difficult about swiftly eliminating North Korea's military capability would be the risk that they'd get off salvoes at Seoul before they were destroyed.

 

Which would be like somebody firing missiles into the heart of London or New York.

[Walsingham]

The thing is, Monte, that medeval armies kinda worked. You or I might not fight for such a structure, but people have, and I don't think it's mad to suggest that they would. The army which invaded Germany was brutal and inefficient and cared less about it's soldiers than the Germans probably did. But it functioned. The meat may have weak, but the iron was strong.

 

The comparison with doomsday in Europe is apt to a point. Except that unlike you (probably) I read the mathematical studies of invasion. They dialed the capability of soviet forces right down as far as sense would allow and within days NATO broke. From fatigue, from logistic snarl ups, from C2 fuffle, from casualties... Mass will out.

 

I think the campaign implications for NK would be that eventually the tide would turn. But in the short term they'd give SK one hell of a pasting.

 

I remember digging trenches in Westphalia in 1988 as part of NATO exercises simulating a SOVIET INVAYSHUN!

 

LOL. Can't wait to tell the kids about that one.

 

Anyway, we had lovingly crafted ORBATS of the enemy disposition showing legions of Russki death-dealers. Our AT platoons were told chilling stories about the reactive armour capabilty of the T-80 and the squadrons of attack helis driven by commie robots that would hand us our asses if doomsday ever came.

 

Guess what?

 

It was a medieval conscript army running on about half-a-dozen working radios, drinking anti-freeze, selling their kit because they hadn't been paid for six months. They were a freaking shambles.

 

North Korea's army, I am inclined to believe, will be little different. Drop some instant sunshine on them and find out.

[Monte Carlo]

^ I was acutely aware that NATO infantry battalions in Germany in the event of WW3 had about a 48 hour life expectancy. I think the whole concept of operations was to blunt the Reds long enough for the thing not to go strat-nuke and allow the politicos to figure something out. It wasn't all bratwurst and trying not to get my Small Metal Gun dirty

[Walsingham]

^ I was acutely aware that NATO infantry battalions in Germany in the event of WW3 had about a 48 hour life expectancy. I think the whole concept of operations was to blunt the Reds long enough for the thing not to go strat-nuke and allow the politicos to figure something out. It wasn't all bratwurst and trying not to get my Small Metal Gun dirty

 

I actually just dashed back to apologise for sounding like a wanker. Obviously I AM a wanker, but I needn't stress the fact.

 

All I was trying to get at is the principle of mass in warfare is (in my opinion) something which never goes away. Moral factors have a big part to play in unexpected results. But over time, mass will out.

[Junai]

I swear to God that Junai has been on this board about as long as I have and that he hasn't read a single solitary word I've written.

Look deeply into the bathroom-mirror, and ask yourself; "Why do I want Junai to read my posts?".

 

 

J.

[Humodour]

“North Korean soldiers have full stomachs from our support, and now they repay us by firing at us. Next time, we should repay them by shooting them back.”

 

INCHEON, South Korea — The explosions from North Korean artillery shells sent Hong Kwang-sun and other members of his construction crew rushing into the basement of their half-finished building on Yeonpyeong Island. As he ran, he saw two workers still standing outside just as another round of blasts engulfed the construction site in flames.

 

The next day, searchers found the two men’s bodies. They were burned beyond recognition.

 

“We never thought they would attack civilians,” Mr. Hong said Saturday as he and other survivors sat somberly drinking soju, an alcoholic beverage, near a makeshift shrine to the two men in this South Korean port city. “North Korean soldiers have full stomachs from our support, and now they repay us by firing at us. Next time, we should repay them by shooting them back.”

 

The South did shoot back, but many Koreans consider the limited response feeble compared with the hourlong artillery barrage on Tuesday, in which North Korea rained about 180 shells on the island, killing the civilians and two South Korean marines.

 

The ferocity of the attack — and the deaths of the civilians — appear to have started a shift in South Koreans’ conflicted emotions about their countrymen in the North, and not just among those who were shot at.

 

After years of backing food aid and other help for the North despite a series of provocations that included two nuclear tests, many South Koreans now say they feel betrayed and angry.

 

“I think we should respond strongly toward North Korea for once instead of being dragged by them,” said Cho Jong-gu, 44, a salesman in Seoul. “This time, it wasn’t just the soldiers. The North mercilessly hurt the civilians.”

 

That is not to say he or other South Koreans will really push for a South Korean strike; people south of the border are well aware that the North could devastate Seoul with its weapons.

 

But the sentiments reflect a change of mood in a country where people have willed themselves to believe that their brotherly ties to the North would override the ideological chasm between the Communist North and capitalist South.

 

The attack seemed to challenge one of the underlying assumptions of a decade of inter-Korean rapprochement, which had slowed but not stopped under President, Lee Myung-bak: that two nations’ shared Koreanness trumped political differences, making a return to cold war-era hostilities not only undesirable but impossible.

 

“I never thought they would attack us people of the same race,” said Hong Jae-soon, 55, a homemaker who fled Yeonpyeong with most of the island’s other 1,350 residents after the attack.

 

She said she was in her kitchen peeling ginger to make kimchi, the spicy fermented vegetables that are both Koreas’ national dish, when she heard distant booms. As the roar got louder, and the ground began to shake, she ran outside and saw that a house four houses away from hers had been blown into rubble.

 

“We learned you cannot trust them,” she said.

 

Chung Young-ae, a 72-year-old fisherwoman who lived her entire life on the island, said she had been hunting for oysters in shallow water when she heard a series of booms, and looked up to see the mountains on fire. “I was 12 during the Korean War, and we saw planes fly overhead, but nothing like this happened,” she said. “This was worse.”

 

She said she cowered for two days in a cold, dark bomb shelter without blankets and with only bread to eat, until fleeing on a boat to Incheon. She expressed the torn feelings of many South Koreans —anger and a fear of escalating hostilities.

 

“They’re evil, they’re millipedes that should be crushed,” she said of the North Koreans. “No, we can’t fight them. But we shouldn’t help them anymore, either.”

 

Like many islanders, she said that while Yeonpyeong had been her lifelong home, she could never go back, for fear of being attacked again. Since the attack, all but a handful of the island’s residents have fled to the mainland.

 

About 500 were packed Saturday into In Spa World, a hangar-size bathhouse and entertainment center that had been hastily converted into a refugee shelter. Inside, islanders slept on the floors or lined up at a makeshift soup kitchen set up by the volunteers from the Korean Red Cross.

 

Choi Byung-soo said he was sitting at home with friends eating lunch when his neighborhood suddenly erupted in explosions. The blasts blew out his windows. When they ventured outside, he saw a car flipped on its back, and a half dozen columns of black smoke rose from the town. After arriving in Incheon, Mr. Choi was hospitalized for hearing loss, throat damage from the smoke and anxiety attacks.

 

“This was a civilian neighborhood, like Seoul,” said Mr. Choi, 34, an online marketer.

 

He, too, recommended a cutoff of aid to the North, as did the construction worker who watched his colleagues die, Mr. Hong.

 

“If we had not fed them, they would not even be able to hold their guns,” he said. “We shouldn’t attack them, because we have become a democracy, and I can still remember when we were still like them, poor and eating out of cans. But if we give them any more money, they’ll use it to kill us.”

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/28/world/as...sland.html?_r=1

Edited November 28, 2010 by Krezack

[cronicler]

Krezack:

 

There are a couple of details you seem to be missing.

-The US military is way overstretched at the moment. They just don't have the raw numbers required to control all the irons they have in the fire. To make the matters infinately worse, since cold war US armed forces have teched up to cut down numbers and are trained for LIC, The situation in Korea needs completely opposite approach and gear if it goes hot.

 

-China needs NK intact for 2 reasons. First, it "secures" China's east border, relieving them from using "military" grade foot units to secure it.

Second reason is much more bloody. NK is a huge keg of refugees and any refugee rush would overwhelm the border. There is (nearly) no doubt that Chinese units would be ordered to shoot the refugee waves and a general "civil war" would ensure, destroying a big part of NE China's productive capabilities.

Edited November 28, 2010 by cronicler

[Humodour]

Krezack:

 

There are a couple of details you seem to be missing.

 

Not to be facetious but I would suggest the same thing right back at you.

 

-The US military is way overstretched at the moment. They just don't have the raw numbers required to control all the irons they have in the fire. Since cold war US armed forces have teched up to cut down numbers and are trained for LIC, The situation in Korea needs completely opposite approach and gear if it goes hot.

 

This is NOT an American thing. This is a Western thing. This is not Iraq or Afghanistan, this is South Korea. This would not be a peacekeeping mission, it would be a full-on war, albeit likely brief. South Korea is a very vital trade partner to Australia alone so you can bet we'd be sending in vastly more troops than we ever did to Afghanistan or Iraq. Same goes for Japan, the EU, NATO, UN, etc.

 

Secondly, the South Korean army is about the same size as the North Korean army and far more advanced. The West would be supplying the backup here more than anything - not the core force.

 

-China needs NK intact for 2 reasons. First, it "secures" China's east border, relieving them from using "military" grade foot units to secure it.

Second reason is much more bloody. NK is a huge keg of refugees and any refugee rush would overwhelm the border. There is (nearly) no doubt that Chinese units would be ordered to shoot the refugee waves and a general "civil war" would ensure, destroying a big part of NE China's productive capabilities.

 

No I did not miss this point, in fact I mentioned it in this thread and previous threads. I don't want a war with North Korea, for the record. I want every single country in the world to stop all - every last bit - of trade and aid to them.

 

China shooting refugees is your fantasy, however. Their government is not that evil, at least not while the West is watching.

[Humodour]

And maybe America doesn't need conventional troops that much any more anyway.... http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/11/27...ne-To-Land-Soon

 

This spy plane, which nobody outside the American government knows what it does, has been in the air for 7 straight months. It has repeatedly changed trajectory through a powerful engine.

 

This is one amazing piece of technology.

[Oblarg]

This thread needs LoF. I'm utterly shocked he hasn't posted yet.

[Humodour]

This thread needs LoF. I'm utterly shocked he hasn't posted yet.

 

LoF probably has posted, just not under his LoF account.

[I want teh kotor 3]

This thread needs LoF. I'm utterly shocked he hasn't posted yet.

 

LoF probably has posted, just not under his LoF account.

 

Most definitely.

 

EDIT: Has anyone supported NK?

Edited November 28, 2010 by I want teh kotor 3

[Orogun01]

This guy

[Nepenthe]

This is NOT an American thing. This is a Western thing. This is not Iraq or Afghanistan, this is South Korea. This would not be a peacekeeping mission, it would be a full-on war, albeit likely brief. South Korea is a very vital trade partner to Australia alone so you can bet we'd be sending in vastly more troops than we ever did to Afghanistan or Iraq. Same goes for Japan, the EU, NATO, UN, etc.

Considering that both the screens in front of my say "Samsung", I have a harder time disagreeing with you than I should.

[Hildegard]

NK simply wouldn't have the resources to fight a war. Sure, they could cause massive damage to civilians. But if you just look at the resources they have on paper, without foreign aid, very large parts of their population would be starving to death very fast. I've already stated that the reason a war can not be fought is that it would lead to massive civilian casualties, and also millions of refugees. Every war would eventually lead to the inevitable collapse of the North Korean state, however. North Korea has no chance of winning an offensive war against anyone, all they can do is hold South Korea hostage and threaten to mistreat it's own population.

 

My thought exactly regarding resources! NK doesn't have the logistics to wage an all-out invasion aimed against the South, and I don't mean ammunition but it lacks the necessary amounts of fuel, food, water, medicine and other such supplies to undergo such a move. I think they are aware of this fact and therefor wouldn't be undertaking such a move in case of an all out weapons exchange between the North and the South. But even without taking large offensive moves towards the South, NK can still cause extensive damage to SK's military and to the US military stationed on the peninsula, not to mention the civilian casualties. If they only held their positions in a general defensive strategy their supplies would last much longer then in a scenario mentioned above. And one critical question here is, in case of a possible conflict, would the flow of Chinese supplies going to NK through their aid and trade with the North stop or continue? But that's just a question that raises ten other ones and I'll leave it at that.

 

"What I'm saying is the US can't just come with couple of bomber squadrons and take out NK missiles and artillery in one or two strikes and yeeee victory for the US!!!"

 

Who claimed they could?

 

The user Monte Carlo implied so, or whatever his name is, as part of my first post on this topic was a direct reply to him.

 

^ I was acutely aware that NATO infantry battalions in Germany in the event of WW3 had about a 48 hour life expectancy. I think the whole concept of operations was to blunt the Reds long enough for the thing not to go strat-nuke and allow the politicos to figure something out. It wasn't all bratwurst and trying not to get my Small Metal Gun dirty

 

Speaking on this subject, the only 'workable' plan of NATO in Europe was a nuclear counter-strike. In conventional warfare the Soviets were far more superior in Europe.

[cronicler]

Krezack: (As an Aussie, you should have better info on the "wall" between PRC and NK.) A mass exodus from NK would devastate the North China's production capabilities. If such a thing occurs PRC will have only 2 options: block it or absorb and shoulder it. Absorbing it would cost a lot (both in raw cost and diverted economical output) and blocking it... you can probably imagine how botched that would become easily.

 

I completely agree with you about the nature of this conflict. However neither EU nor USA have the capability to field the forces suitable for such a conflict. Everyone (and this even includes Russians to some extent) is geared for LIC (Low intensity conflicts, guerrilla warfare or police actions.) Offhand, I can list maybe 3 countries allied with SK who can field armies trained for WW2 style warfare and have the deployable numbers on hand.

 

I agree that countries like Australia, India, NZ could and would deploy reinforcements but expecting the same level of commitment from EU or US would be too optimistic. EU forces are generally tied into pretzel thanks to politicians who twist the SOP into slave chains and then leak it on top of it all. US forces (light inf, air transport, carrier groups, active army group(s)) are all tasked up. Same goes for UK. Sure they would deploy "eventually". but that eventually would be a long time...

 

Anyway, I guess what I try to mean is: If NK attacks, it will deal a lot of damage. it may or may not be able to best SK on warfare but no one has the forces to go in there and clean the bloody place.

[Humodour]

With Wikileaks comes a new dimension to North Korea's threat: it supplies Iran with nuclear fuel, technology, and missiles designed to have enough range to hit Europe.

 

-- Iran has obtained sophisticated missiles from North Korea capable of hitting western Europe, and the United States is concerned Iran is using those rockets as "building blocks" to build longer-range missiles. The advanced missiles are much more powerful than anything U.S. officials have publicly acknowledged Iran has in its arsenal.

 

cronicler: Interesting read. Might respond if I have time when I get home.

Edited November 29, 2010 by Krezack

[Calax]

http://kotaku.com/5700983/south-korean-pol...-isnt-starcraft

 

When asked by the South Korean Congress as to why the response was delayed in a retaliation, the Defense chairman said "This isn't starcraft".