N. Korea vs S. Korea Rnd 2 (update 3-6)

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Is this what Biden was talking about when he said "Watch. We're going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."? It'll be interesting to see how Obama and HRC handle this and how effective they'll be. Looks to me that NK is looking for a handout...a really big handout.

You beat me to it. I suspect this might be such an issue for sure.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: ccryder
The last report I read on a NK invasion was 5 or 6 years ago, authored by US generals, and it predicted NK troops in Seoul in a matter of hours, the NK offense finally slowed around the 37th parallel, with the U.S. use of conventional nuclear weapons. The SK strategy was not offensive in nature, but included retreat and the destruction of SK bridges and highways behind them to slow the NK advance, and although I may be mistaken, some bridges are maintained prewired with explosives for this scenario. It was not a rosy report, and hopefully things have changed.

We also predicted 30,000 casualties on the first day of the Gulf War. We ended up with about 200. Not saying the report isn't accurate, just saying it's accuracy is in question.

 

[Colt45]

Originally posted by: irishScott
Tactically we could own North Korea in an all out conflict. Two Words: Air Superiority. Against a conventional Army it's extremely effective. IIRC the carrier USS George Washington is in Japan now, and it carries about 70 aircraft, along with an additional 130 Fighters on Japan iteslf. We'd have air superiority within hours.

It's not the desert.

F-16's flying around pyongyang aren't going to affect the thousands of men with 100% morale and a bunch of artillery in the hills.
Not to mention NK has actual AA, unlike iraq.

 

[winnar111]

With George W. Bush gone, I would do this too.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: winnar111
With George W. Bush gone, I would do this too.

I think as little of the world as possible tries to base their actions on 'what Winnar would do'. Or at least they would if they came to this board.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: Colt45
It's not the desert.

F-16's flying around pyongyang aren't going to affect the thousands of men with 100% morale and a bunch of artillery in the hills.
Not to mention NK has actual AA, unlike iraq.

Actually North Korea's AA and air defense system isn't significantly better than Iraq's was during Gulf War One, particularly if you factor in the US Air Force has comparatively improved further since then. The problem for North Korea is they simply haven't been able to afford to buy pretty much any new SAM systems since the collapse of the Soviet Union which meant they could no longer get them free or at a heavy discount.

The reality is while its not the desert, a conventional force is highly exposed as they try to advance over enemy territory, and they also can have their supply lines hit by airpower.

The 100% morale part is really pretty much nonsense. Besides the other questionable componenets of it, the morale of the forces are certainly going to take a hit when they see their T-55 and T-62s repeatedly hitting for instance a South Korean K1A1 tank's frontal armor and having thier shells bounce off while the 120mm main gun of the K1A1 successfully takes out an enemy tank with every shot.

Airpower won't do everything, but it can be extremely effective, and South Korea's own Air Force also significantly outclasses North Korea's at this point.

 

[nullzero]

I dont think North Korea has plans to waste man power and walk over to SK. NK has over 13k artillery pieces aimed at Seoul with almost all of them manned and ready to unload on the city within a few mins notice. As for all this talk about air... its pointless with what strategy the NK has... Which is to dig in and unleash hell until they are destroyed. The war would be over in a month but almost a million people would most likely die in the first 3 hours and half of South Korea's infrastructure in ruins. United States would make ruins of North Korea for sure with its air force... but not without NK going out with a bang.

If anything this hypothetical conflict would drag China into a cold war with the U.S. since we would be unleashing our military might miles from their boarder.

As for the Iraq and North Korea military compared... its not even close to the same. Iraq had very little offensive potential besides some run down old soviet tanks and a few scuds left. After the first gulf war they never recovered what offensive potential they did have. North Korea on the other hand has had decades to build up, dig in, and stock pile artillery and missiles that are all pointed and ready to go off at South Korea.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: nullzero

Originally posted by: Genx87
Smart move as we load troops, tanks, and trucks onto ships headed home from Iraq. Next stop SK.

I dont think the NK has the technology or training to be a serious threat. The days of swarming your enemy are done. Plus I bet if the SK troops offered bread in exchange for surrender it would be a success.

But all joking aside I dont see NK being able to take SK. Especially if we can get troops on the scene in a matter of days. If anything I could see China taking an opportunity to crush a pita and show a little military force in the region at the same time.

North Korea has enough artillery pointed at Seoul, SK alone to flatten it with conventional artillery. Even if we did a pre-emptive strike on over a thousand artillery locations it would not stop there ability to turn Seoul, SK into a wasteland. North Korea is extremely dangerous... If you got some kamakazi mentality in the leadership over there it could start WW3.

But for South Korea, a more immediate danger may be North Korea's artillery.

The capital Seoul, only 60 km (37 miles) south of the heavily fortified Demilitarized Zone that has divided the peninsula since the end of the Korean War in 1953, has long been within range of one of the world's most powerful artillery batteries.

South Korea's Defense Ministry said the North had amassed more than 13,000 pieces of artillery and multiple rocket launchers, much of it aimed at Seoul.

Jane's International Defense Review estimates that if North Korea launched an all-out barrage, it could achieve an initial fire rate of 300,000 to 500,000 shells per hour into the Seoul area -- home to about half the country's 48.5 million people.

The biggest are 170-mm self-propelled artillery guns and 240-mm multiple rocket launchers. It also has hundreds of Scud missiles that could hit any part of South Korea.

North Korea is also thought to have been working to attach chemical and biological weapons to its long-range artillery.

http://www.boston.com/news/wor...esent_danger_to_south/

Most of North Korea's artillery is hidden in the forest and fortified into the land. It would be an impossible task for the U.S. to take them all out unless they dropped a nuke big enough to wipe all of north korea out... (which is impossible because they would destroy half of SK with it and not to mention nuclear fallout). Rumor has it that North Korea has potentially some nuclear tipped artillery. Its just about impossible to stop artillery from impacting its targeted area once fired.

It's not difficult for a modern army to plot back to where the shells are coming from and return fire, probably in this case with MLRS sporting a crap load of sub-munitions. Also, we can already shoot shells out of the air. Give it a few more years and we'll be able to do it with high energy weapons.

NK doesn't have nuclear artillery. They've got some chemical shells but hitting Seoul with VX or something of that caliber would end up getting them nuked.

 

[nullzero]

It's not difficult for a modern army to plot back to where the shells are coming from and return fire, probably in this case with MLRS sporting a crap load of sub-munitions. Also, we can already shoot shells out of the air. Give it a few more years and we'll be able to do it with high energy weapons.

NK doesn't have nuclear artillery. They've got some chemical shells but hitting Seoul with VX or something of that caliber would end up getting them nuked.

No we would not nuke NK... would would risk a war with China or cold war from the fall out.

As for plotting back the artillery... they would have to return a barrage of artillery at over thousands of different locations that are fortified and do it in less then 5 mins. Otherwise Seoul would be toast. All it would take is about 500 artillery hits in Seoul and it would be up in flames all over with thousands of casualties.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: nullzero

It's not difficult for a modern army to plot back to where the shells are coming from and return fire, probably in this case with MLRS sporting a crap load of sub-munitions. Also, we can already shoot shells out of the air. Give it a few more years and we'll be able to do it with high energy weapons.

NK doesn't have nuclear artillery. They've got some chemical shells but hitting Seoul with VX or something of that caliber would end up getting them nuked.

No we would not nuke NK... would would risk a war with China or cold war from the fall out.

It may be no ICBM, but a decent bit of VX gas could easily kill tens if not hundreds of thousands in an urban setting depending on a number of factors. IMO the use of a small-scale tactical nuke to take out the offending emplacements would be justifiable, especially if there were repeat launches.

 

[nullzero]

I think we would be more likely to use MOABs first before nukes. Do we really want to get into a cold war with China? VX gas would be extremely deadly to the civilian population but our military forces over there and South Korea's would be mostly unaffected from the training and gear they have.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: nullzero

It's not difficult for a modern army to plot back to where the shells are coming from and return fire, probably in this case with MLRS sporting a crap load of sub-munitions. Also, we can already shoot shells out of the air. Give it a few more years and we'll be able to do it with high energy weapons.

NK doesn't have nuclear artillery. They've got some chemical shells but hitting Seoul with VX or something of that caliber would end up getting them nuked.

No we would not nuke NK... would would risk a war with China or cold war from the fall out.

As for plotting back the artillery... they would have to return a barrage of artillery at over thousands of different locations that are fortified and do it in less then 5 mins. Otherwise Seoul would be toast. All it would take is about 500 artillery hits in Seoul and it would be up in flames all over with thousands of casualties.

If NK decides to use chemical or biological weapons you're dam right we will.

Not all of NK's artillery can hit Seoul from their present positions. The big concerns are the high caliber guns (170s) and the rockets which have to be exposed to get into firing position. The city will take quite a bit of damage but SK and US forces should be able to suppress most of the NK artillery in relatively short order.

 

[nullzero]

k1052,

A few mins of arty would still do massive damage on the scale of thousands of deaths and wide spread fires in the city. If North Korea added chemical and biological to the mix it would be devastation to Seoul. I think with the nukes we would not jump as quick to it as many may think for potential problems with China. Now a very small yield nuke could be possible and perhaps we would blame it on a north korean nuke reactor or warhead...

 

[Moonbeam]

wHAT i'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IS THAT WHY, AMONG ALL YOU, oops, folk who know everything about North and South Korea and can tell us all exactly what will happen and what is actually going on, I, myself, haven't the faintest idea.

 

[nullzero]

Moonbeam,

North Korea is just postering itself nothing more. I would not expect any conflict to come about unless there is some fundamental change in thinking on the North Korean side and they have no regard for their own lives.

 

[JEDIYoda]

You guys are all wacko....
China would immediately come to the defense and aid of North Korea immediately once it was established we were going to obliterate the North Koreans....

 

[Thump553]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
He's just doing it to try and get more concessions out of the new administration and the international community. Even he knows that a war would be a BAD idea for his country. Obama and other world leaders should stick to their current positions and not change one iota. We shouldn't be putting up with this crap.

yea but he wouldn't dare pull this shit under W. Carry a big stick and take a wack at the bitches.

I understand you are a GWB apologist, but do you really have such an amazingly short memory? How could you forget GWB's inept and basically ineffective handling of NK during his adminstration?

Seoul is pretty close to the border and would have enormous civilian death and damage in the event of a shooting war.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
You guys are all wacko....
China would immediately come to the defense and aid of North Korea immediately once it was established we were going to obliterate the North Koreans....

China should just annex North Korea and be done with it. It would be an improvement for the lives of the North Koreans and we would have one less madman in the world to worry about. I do not like the PRC's rulers, but they are at least sane.

 

[Jhhnn]

The ROK has the most sophisticated defense in depth system ever created, and a fully modern well equipped military, including an excellent day/night all weather airforce whose gear is *almost* equal to the US. They also have the US forces in Japan and Okinawa to back them up.

The DPRK has antiquated equipment and a chronic shortage of fuel, food, and spare parts. Their airforce is totally overmatched against their southern cousins. And they don't have any meaningful bakcup at this point, certainly not from the chinese or the russians.

Yeh, sure, DPRK artillery would wreak havoc in Seoul's northern suburbs, but they'd be annihilated if they came out into the open to attack across the DMZ.

The southerners won't attack because the price of winning is too high, and the northerners won't attack because the chances of losing are near total... lots of posturing, but little chance of catastrophic miscalculation from either party...

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
The ROK has the most sophisticated defense in depth system ever created, and a fully modern well equipped military, including an excellent day/night all weather airforce whose gear is *almost* equal to the US. They also have the US forces in Japan and Okinawa to back them up.

The DPRK has antiquated equipment and a chronic shortage of fuel, food, and spare parts. Their airforce is totally overmatched against their southern cousins. And they don't have any meaningful bakcup at this point, certainly not from the chinese or the russians.

Yeh, sure, DPRK artillery would wreak havoc in Seoul's northern suburbs, but they'd be annihilated if they came out into the open to attack across the DMZ.

The southerners won't attack because the price of winning is too high, and the northerners won't attack because the chances of losing are near total... lots of posturing, but little chance of catastrophic miscalculation from either party...

If both sides were sane, I'd agree. Personally I wouldn't put anything past NK.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
You guys are all wacko....
China would immediately come to the defense and aid of North Korea immediately once it was established we were going to obliterate the North Koreans....

China should just annex North Korea and be done with it. It would be an improvement for the lives of the North Koreans and we would have one less madman in the world to worry about. I do not like the PRC's rulers, but they are at least sane.

Or, South Korea should just Annex North Korea.

 

[Uhtrinity]

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
You guys are all wacko....
China would immediately come to the defense and aid of North Korea immediately once it was established we were going to obliterate the North Koreans....

China should just annex North Korea and be done with it. It would be an improvement for the lives of the North Koreans and we would have one less madman in the world to worry about. I do not like the PRC's rulers, but they are at least sane.

Or, South Korea should just Annex North Korea.

That would be like the US annexing Mexico. Why would we want to?

 

[Stiganator]

..

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
You guys are all wacko....
China would immediately come to the defense and aid of North Korea immediately once it was established we were going to obliterate the North Koreans....

China should just annex North Korea and be done with it. It would be an improvement for the lives of the North Koreans and we would have one less madman in the world to worry about. I do not like the PRC's rulers, but they are at least sane.

Or, South Korea should just Annex North Korea.

That would be like the US annexing Mexico. Why would we want to?

quite a bit different, actually.

more like west germany annexing east germany, you used to be one country and were seperated for dumb political reasons and share a common culture and history.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Stiganator
Don't we have several carriers armed with rail guns that have a range that covers all of NK? I remember in 2006 they did some rattling and we moved in the carriers and they quieted down. I don't really understand how they let this fly. Letting your people starve when you have options is no different the killing them with biological weapons.

i don't believe that any american ships have implemented railguns at this point, i think thats still about a decade away