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

[Merithynos]

Originally posted by: dphantom

I have to disagree with some of your points. DPRK could probably advance to Seoul but then what. Dig in and slug it out? Tactically that makes no sense. If that happens ROK will not stop at the DMZ but will go north, at least for a bit. The US showed how to fight in built up areas in Baghdad with the "Thunder Runs". They were absolutely devastating. So Seoul will be costly, but not like Stalingrad say in WWII.

ROK troops should be able to supply most of the ground forces. USAF and USN air power will do the rest including cruise missiles. 2 ID can be airlifted into Pusan in about a week and marry up with prepositined equipment.

Japan will have no problem allowing bases to be used for both logistical and offensive operations. There is no way Japan wants DPRK in the south.

China will assimilate Taiwan peacefully. It only has to wait ala Hong Kong. It will happen eventually.

I agree that digging in at Seoul would make no sense tactically, if you assume that the end goal was a forced unification of the Korean peninsula, with the DPRK as the dominant political entity. The DPRK has no chance of winning a protracted struggle against the ROK with the US as a committed ally and without the PRC as an active supporter. It does make sense if the purpose was to force more favorable terms in any brokered political solution. 40 percent of the population of the ROK lives within 40 miles of Seoul, and any protracted fight to dislodge the DPRK army would be devastating to the civilian infrastructure.

While I agree that Japan has no interest in seeing Kim Jong-Il in charge, I also think they would take a long, hard look at the DPRK's ability to drop one of its 5 or 6 nukes into the center of Tokyo...and if I were Kim, I would probably have just that discussion with the Japanese government as soon as hostilities commence. It'd be suicide to actually do it...but if you were Japan, would you take the risk?

Worse, overwhelming USN air power in the early stages of the conflict is no guarantee. While it's obvious that the DPRK navy is in no way, shape, or form capable of sustained operations against the USN, they do have dozens of ex-Soviet and PRC diesel subs. While relatively worthless for force-projection (they won't be sinking ships off the coast of North America), they do represent at least a modest threat in the confined waters of the Sea of Japan and the East China Sea. With the Carl Vinson in RCOH and the GHW Bush still undergoing sea trials, the US only has 9 active-duty carriers available for deployment. It would only take one lucky "martyr for the revolution" to put a significant dent in that.

Regardless though, I wasn't trying to point out why the DPRK would "win" a war (it wouldn't), just that there are significant reasons why it has to be taken relatively seriously. If you back Kim into a position where he feels he has nothing to lose, the potential consequences are far more severe than a few Scuds launched at Israel.

In terms of Taiwan, I think the PRC would have to strongly consider forcing the issue if the US were to find itself simultaneously committed to Iraq, Afghanistan, and a renewed conflict in Korea. At that point, I am not sure the US would be in a position to do more than protest.

 

[StageLeft]

I just read up on DpRK's military and will say I'm quite surprised by its size, including airforce and navy. Now, we know its quality is really the scrapings of a dog's ass, but still it does have some impressive numbers.

 

[Kirby]

I hate hearing shit like this. I have a lot of friends in Seoul.

And all my Korean friends here would have to go and fight if there was a conflict.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I just read up on DpRK's military and will say I'm quite surprised by its size, including airforce and navy. Now, we know its quality is really the scrapings of a dog's ass, but still it does have some impressive numbers.

Large yes, but size is rarely a factor in and of itself. There are any number of historical examples where significantly outnumbered force stood up and won either tactically, strategically or both.

Thermopylae comes to mind as does the Chosin Reservoir more recently. Yes, the Marines had to retreat, but they came out intact as a fighting force against at least 2 Chinese Field Armies.

Iraq also had a large Army, top 5 at one time I beleive in terms of numbers.

Rather than size, it is the proper application of Clausweitzs' principles that will hold forth.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Merithynos

Originally posted by: dphantom

I have to disagree with some of your points. DPRK could probably advance to Seoul but then what. Dig in and slug it out? Tactically that makes no sense. If that happens ROK will not stop at the DMZ but will go north, at least for a bit. The US showed how to fight in built up areas in Baghdad with the "Thunder Runs". They were absolutely devastating. So Seoul will be costly, but not like Stalingrad say in WWII.

ROK troops should be able to supply most of the ground forces. USAF and USN air power will do the rest including cruise missiles. 2 ID can be airlifted into Pusan in about a week and marry up with prepositined equipment.

Japan will have no problem allowing bases to be used for both logistical and offensive operations. There is no way Japan wants DPRK in the south.

China will assimilate Taiwan peacefully. It only has to wait ala Hong Kong. It will happen eventually.

I agree that digging in at Seoul would make no sense tactically, if you assume that the end goal was a forced unification of the Korean peninsula, with the DPRK as the dominant political entity. The DPRK has no chance of winning a protracted struggle against the ROK with the US as a committed ally and without the PRC as an active supporter. It does make sense if the purpose was to force more favorable terms in any brokered political solution. 40 percent of the population of the ROK lives within 40 miles of Seoul, and any protracted fight to dislodge the DPRK army would be devastating to the civilian infrastructure.

While I agree that Japan has no interest in seeing Kim Jong-Il in charge, I also think they would take a long, hard look at the DPRK's ability to drop one of its 5 or 6 nukes into the center of Tokyo...and if I were Kim, I would probably have just that discussion with the Japanese government as soon as hostilities commence. It'd be suicide to actually do it...but if you were Japan, would you take the risk?

Worse, overwhelming USN air power in the early stages of the conflict is no guarantee. While it's obvious that the DPRK navy is in no way, shape, or form capable of sustained operations against the USN, they do have dozens of ex-Soviet and PRC diesel subs. While relatively worthless for force-projection (they won't be sinking ships off the coast of North America), they do represent at least a modest threat in the confined waters of the Sea of Japan and the East China Sea. With the Carl Vinson in RCOH and the GHW Bush still undergoing sea trials, the US only has 9 active-duty carriers available for deployment. It would only take one lucky "martyr for the revolution" to put a significant dent in that.

Regardless though, I wasn't trying to point out why the DPRK would "win" a war (it wouldn't), just that there are significant reasons why it has to be taken relatively seriously. If you back Kim into a position where he feels he has nothing to lose, the potential consequences are far more severe than a few Scuds launched at Israel.

In terms of Taiwan, I think the PRC would have to strongly consider forcing the issue if the US were to find itself simultaneously committed to Iraq, Afghanistan, and a renewed conflict in Korea. At that point, I am not sure the US would be in a position to do more than protest.

I draw from an analogy of the Iraq invasion of Kuwait. Iraq had to go further and take out Saudi coastal oil facilities and other logistical infrastructure if they ever expected to have a chance to hold Kuwait. Instead, they stopped and became a sitting duck while US and other forces built up unmolested.

So there is nothing for DPRK to gain from a simple invasion stopping at Seoul. They will lose and have gained nothing. Instead, there only real chance is a drive south. I too do not think for a moment they can sustain such a drive and win. But perhaps a drive to say around Taegu then attempt to get peace terms might have the odd chance of working.

I also have a concern over a lack of carriers, but think the F-22 wings now coming in to play can carry the load while carriers are repositioned. I have no concern over the DPRK navy such as it is. It will be blown out of the water in 72 hours.

Taiwan, again I just do not see the Chinese doing much there except some saber rattling. They will want to make sure DPRK does not get overrun as their first priority so will position accordingly.

 

[piasabird]

Just one more reason for a preemptive strike. Take them out while you can.

During the first Korean war we had the option of nuking China. We should have nuked all of China when they invaded North Korea during the war in the 1950's. This is what happens when you hesitate. You have a war that never ends.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Just one more reason for a preemptive strike. Take them out while you can.

During the first Korean war we had the option of nuking China. We should have nuked all of China when they invaded North Korea during the war in the 1950's. This is what happens when you hesitate. You have a war that never ends.

So says Captain Chairforce of the 101st Keyboard Division.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Just one more reason for a preemptive strike. Take them out while you can.

During the first Korean war we had the option of nuking China. We should have nuked all of China when they invaded North Korea during the war in the 1950's. This is what happens when you hesitate. You have a war that never ends.

What would have been the justification for it (at the time)?

There was no ongoing conflict with mainland China

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: piasabird
Just one more reason for a preemptive strike. Take them out while you can.

During the first Korean war we had the option of nuking China. We should have nuked all of China when they invaded North Korea during the war in the 1950's. This is what happens when you hesitate. You have a war that never ends.

What would have been the justification for it (at the time)?

There was no ongoing conflict with mainland China

Not to mention a bombing campaign (and sweet jesus particularly an atomic bombing campaign) would have opened us up to retaliatory strikes on our incredibly vulnerable Japanese bases, as well as massively increased Soviet involvement in the war. MacArthur wanted to widen the war, but there's a good chance he would have turned it into world war 3... and for what? Would a unified Korean peninsula have been worth such a risk? I sure as hell don't think so.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Just one more reason for a preemptive strike. Take them out while you can.

During the first Korean war we had the option of nuking China. We should have nuked all of China when they invaded North Korea during the war in the 1950's. This is what happens when you hesitate. You have a war that never ends.

Me? Not so much a fan of nuking an entire nation.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
What would have been the justification for it (at the time)?

We were fighting China after they entered the war. UN forces had basically defeated North Korea by that point and marched close to the Chinese border before the Chinese intervened. For better or worse, it was a limited war and the UN could not bomb (conventional or otherwise) the Chinese mainland, so the enemy had a safe haven that supplied men and material.

Best case scenario of an expanded war: Korea united under a democratic government, UN marches to Beijing and puts the Nationalists back in power of a now unified China (Taiwan and mainland) and it eventually becomes a democracy.

Worse case scenario: Russia intervenes, nukes fly, everyone loses.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: piasabird
Just one more reason for a preemptive strike. Take them out while you can.

During the first Korean war we had the option of nuking China. We should have nuked all of China when they invaded North Korea during the war in the 1950's. This is what happens when you hesitate. You have a war that never ends.

So says Captain Chairforce of the 101st Keyboard Division.

lmao this is so true. Think of all the hotty Chinese girls we wouldn't have had we done this.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: piasabird
Just one more reason for a preemptive strike. Take them out while you can.

During the first Korean war we had the option of nuking China. We should have nuked all of China when they invaded North Korea during the war in the 1950's. This is what happens when you hesitate. You have a war that never ends.

So says Captain Chairforce of the 101st Keyboard Division.

lmao this is so true. Think of all the hotty Chinese girls we wouldn't have had we done this.

I can't think of any we DO have.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: piasabird
Just one more reason for a preemptive strike. Take them out while you can.

During the first Korean war we had the option of nuking China. We should have nuked all of China when they invaded North Korea during the war in the 1950's. This is what happens when you hesitate. You have a war that never ends.

So says Captain Chairforce of the 101st Keyboard Division.

lmao this is so true. Think of all the hotty Chinese girls we wouldn't have had we done this.

I can't think of any we DO have.

Your just not looking

 

[Thump553]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: piasabird
Just one more reason for a preemptive strike. Take them out while you can.

During the first Korean war we had the option of nuking China. We should have nuked all of China when they invaded North Korea during the war in the 1950's. This is what happens when you hesitate. You have a war that never ends.

What would have been the justification for it (at the time)?

There was no ongoing conflict with mainland China

Please don't take this as condescending, but both of you should learn a little about the Korean War. I thought I had at least the basics down, but I recently read an excellent book on the subject by an English historian: The Korean War by Max Hastings. Basically the war started with an invasion by the North Koreans. They mopped up the SK army and the few remaining US troops, eventually pushing them into a very small pocket in the very southern tip of Korea. With the UN mandate and Douglas MacArthur at the helm, the UN/US troops struck back with a vengence, and ended up pushing to a few miles of the NK/China border. Then China basically invaded with it's masses of "volunteers." A long and bloody stalemate akin to the trench warfare of WWI then resulted. And yes, Hastings reveals that the US use of atomic bombs against China was very seriously debated within the US government at the time.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: piasabird
Just one more reason for a preemptive strike. Take them out while you can.

During the first Korean war we had the option of nuking China. We should have nuked all of China when they invaded North Korea during the war in the 1950's. This is what happens when you hesitate. You have a war that never ends.

So says Captain Chairforce of the 101st Keyboard Division.

lmao this is so true. Think of all the hotty Chinese girls we wouldn't have had we done this.

I can't think of any we DO have.

Lucy Liu. Come on, man.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Lucy Liu. Come on, man.

Pardon him, he's from Canada


*as an aside I was in SoHo and walked right by Lucy Liu, we locked eyes for a few seconds, it was nice.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Thump553

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: piasabird
Just one more reason for a preemptive strike. Take them out while you can.

During the first Korean war we had the option of nuking China. We should have nuked all of China when they invaded North Korea during the war in the 1950's. This is what happens when you hesitate. You have a war that never ends.

What would have been the justification for it (at the time)?

There was no ongoing conflict with mainland China

Please don't take this as condescending, but both of you should learn a little about the Korean War. I thought I had at least the basics down, but I recently read an excellent book on the subject by an English historian: The Korean War by Max Hastings. Basically the war started with an invasion by the North Koreans. They mopped up the SK army and the few remaining US troops, eventually pushing them into a very small pocket in the very southern tip of Korea. With the UN mandate and Douglas MacArthur at the helm, the UN/US troops struck back with a vengence, and ended up pushing to a few miles of the NK/China border. Then China basically invaded with it's masses of "volunteers." A long and bloody stalemate akin to the trench warfare of WWI then resulted. And yes, Hastings reveals that the US use of atomic bombs against China was very seriously debated within the US government at the time.

I've read his book several times. Here is what I think is an even better one.

This Kind of War by T.R. Fehrenbach.

It is considered the definitive history of the Korean War.

I have a couple others in my library I could recommend if you are interested. I think they may be out of print though.

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: Train
Corrected Korean to English Translation:

It's time for the rest of the world do another round of "Diplomacy" in which we get a bunch of money for nothing, and they pat themselves on the back admiring how smart and peaceful they are, while we laugh our commie asses off.

Good call.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Thump553

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: piasabird
Just one more reason for a preemptive strike. Take them out while you can.

During the first Korean war we had the option of nuking China. We should have nuked all of China when they invaded North Korea during the war in the 1950's. This is what happens when you hesitate. You have a war that never ends.

What would have been the justification for it (at the time)?

There was no ongoing conflict with mainland China

Please don't take this as condescending, but both of you should learn a little about the Korean War. I thought I had at least the basics down, but I recently read an excellent book on the subject by an English historian: The Korean War by Max Hastings. Basically the war started with an invasion by the North Koreans. They mopped up the SK army and the few remaining US troops, eventually pushing them into a very small pocket in the very southern tip of Korea. With the UN mandate and Douglas MacArthur at the helm, the UN/US troops struck back with a vengence, and ended up pushing to a few miles of the NK/China border. Then China basically invaded with it's masses of "volunteers." A long and bloody stalemate akin to the trench warfare of WWI then resulted. And yes, Hastings reveals that the US use of atomic bombs against China was very seriously debated within the US government at the time.

And you made my p;oint.

Nuking China at the time was not justified.
China has sent forces to aid an ally.
The UN forces were aiding SK.

China was not the battleground.

 

[StageLeft]

Lucy Liu is ok.
Now check this:

the military is prepared to shoot down any North Korean ballistic missile -- if President Obama should give the order.

Cool!

Question is: Should he? If it's truly a satellite, that would be really naughty, but if it's a covert missile test and he takes it out it's an uber pwnage fvck your north korean newbie technology!

However, in reality, I have little confidence in the ability of the navy to take out missiles like this and if they try and miss it will be a major embarrassment.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Lucy Liu is ok.
Now check this:

the military is prepared to shoot down any North Korean ballistic missile -- if President Obama should give the order.

Cool!

Question is: Should he? If it's truly a satellite, that would be really naughty, but if it's a covert missile test and he takes it out it's an uber pwnage fvck your north korean newbie technology!

However, in reality, I have little confidence in the ability of the navy to take out missiles like this and if they try and miss it will be a major embarrassment.

First, NK has to actually launch the missle.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Lucy Liu is ok.
Now check this:

the military is prepared to shoot down any North Korean ballistic missile -- if President Obama should give the order.

Cool!

Question is: Should he? If it's truly a satellite, that would be really naughty, but if it's a covert missile test and he takes it out it's an uber pwnage fvck your north korean newbie technology!

However, in reality, I have little confidence in the ability of the navy to take out missiles like this and if they try and miss it will be a major embarrassment.

First, NK has to actually launch the missle.

It would be cool if they did and it got taken out. This Keating fellow sure seems confident in his ability to take it out. I imagine an Admiral wouldn't talk like that unless he believed it.

 

[Modelworks]

Yeah ABC just did a thing on it , they said we shot down 7 out of 8 missiles from sea and 7 out of 10 from land. Don't like the 7 out of 10 results, we need to work on that one guys.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Lucy Liu is ok.
Now check this:

the military is prepared to shoot down any North Korean ballistic missile -- if President Obama should give the order.

Cool!

Question is: Should he? If it's truly a satellite, that would be really naughty, but if it's a covert missile test and he takes it out it's an uber pwnage fvck your north korean newbie technology!

However, in reality, I have little confidence in the ability of the navy to take out missiles like this and if they try and miss it will be a major embarrassment.

First, NK has to actually launch the missle.

Besides, shooting down a fired missile without head warning and a target device attatched to the missile is effective in exactly 0% of all cases it's been tried in.