North Korea

[Mr Farrius]

Quite right nova satori. The Americans tend to be extremely impulsive without thinking about their actions. Part of the reason Bush is stuck in his sticky situation of having no choice but to ask (beg would be more appropriate than this euphemism) the UN to participate in Iraq. Same goes for charging off to Afghanistan and not being able to find Osama BinLaden in Afghanistan, which nobody on this forum seems to want to explain. With the horrible way things have turned out, an assault on North Korea would definitely bring much more dire consequences. But hey, let the U.S. assault North Korea. Let's see how events unfold after that mistake. Let's see again, that the American government never really thinks out their plans and as a result, fail to achieve them correctly.

[Hugo]

Same goes for charging off to Afghanistan and not being able to find Osama BinLaden in Afghanistan, which nobody on this forum seems to want to explain.

Osama bin Laden is still at large. He is being hunted, but unfortunately in a world of almost 6 billion people it's hard to find one man, especially if he doesn't want to be found and is well versed in the art of evading capture by the authorities.

However, most of Al-Queda's supporters are dead, most of their training camps are rubble and no nation is going to be stupid enough to endorse them after what happened to the Taliban. Apart from hollow threats on videotapes, the world has probably heard the last of Al-Queda. In that regard, Operation Enduring Freedom was a resounding success. Not to mention that now, the Afghan people have at least a shot at prosperity and democracy and Afghan women don't have to choose between literacy and stoning. But I suppose you think that is all part of the world's rich cultural mosaic, don't you?

[Hugo]

An assault upon North Korea would be a picture of hell on Earth.

I doubt it. I would stake $1000 that great military minds at the Pentagon have spent many man-years thinking about North Korean war scenarios and have something worked out.

Let me show you a parallel. In 1991, Iraq had the world's 4th largest army. The air defences of Baghdad were renowned to be impenetrable. They had 6 months to dig themselves in, and they did, with massive anti-tank berms and thoroughly prepared positions. They prepared to give the Coalition the Mother of All Battles.

Once the assault got underway those defences promptly collapsed. Iraqi air defences and air forces were obliterated within hours and Coalition aircraft flew virtually unopposed. The ground war became a race to try to destroy as much Iraqi war materiel as possible before they could pull it back and retreat. Captured Iraqi soldiers believed they were under air attack, as US tanks were scoring hits on their positions at ranges of 3km and more, at which range they couldn't even see what was shooting at them. They took to rotating the turrets of their T-72s by hand because the minute they activated the motors, the heat would show up on American night-sights and several 120mm rounds or TOW missiles would promptly come flying at them.

I'm confident that any North Korean invasion of South Korea would become a similar turkey shoot for US forces.

[nova_satori]

Hugo, then you lack much knowledge of military strategy if you believe North Korea will fall that easily.

Iraq's army is better compared to China's.

Iraq's artillery lags signifigntely behind North Korea's. Iraq's troops train far less than N. Korea's. Iraq's troops are not brainwashed into thinking they will win. Iraq's troops are far more exposed to the world than N. Korea's.

Iraq's terrain is nothing like Korea. If you believe that the same strategy used in Iraq will work in North Korea, you are asking millions of people to die in a foolhardy, reckless attack.

"Once the assault got underway those defences promptly collapsed. Iraqi air defences and air forces were obliterated within hours and Coalition aircraft flew virtually unopposed"

Iraqi air defenses were situated mainly over the cities. Korea's air defenses are spread out into more workable, less confusing fields of overlapping fire. Also, since N. Korea obtained relatively new AAA pieces from China, and tecniques used to detect stealth are rapidly being produced, American Airpower cannot succed how it did before.

You, like many Americans who believe in omnipotence, forget MANY things that will factor in.

North Korea's special operations forces will change the war considerably. Extreme amounts of artillery will rain fire and brimstone worse then armaggedon. 1.1 MILLION troops will rush from the North (after they get rid of all those land mines) aganist the ROK defenses, that is after those defenses have been hit with several salvos from thousands of artillery pieces.

NUKES. Should N Korea face defeat, the most irrational leader in the world will surely let one fly. Launching several hundred missiles at one target, only one with a war head is required. No defense force can stop that many missiles. Besides, all they would have to do is airburst it. Say good bye to a division or two. Or Tokyo.

If you are going to compare Iraq's army to anyone, compare it to China. China is essentially a huge iraqi army in equipment, training, and thought.

If what you say is true, why hasn't the US invaded, if it would be THAT SIMPLE?

*bangs head aganist the wall

[Hugo]

First off, I never said that America might use the same strategy as they did in Iraq, I merely said that they doubtless have one.

Let's go over some of the finer points of military strategy that you have missed here.

AAA looks very imposing to the untrained eye but is never, ever a substitute for a strong interceptor force. Two hours after a war began there would be no North Korean air force. I am a friend of a USAF major, an F-16 pilot, who was awarded the Silver Star in Kosovo. He tells me that is absolutely no problem for an F-16 flight to take out 3 or 4 SAM positions in one sortie, since he has done it himself. A single American carrier can launch about eight hundred sorties a day, I hear. The 7th Fleet alone has 2 carriers. Add reinforcements and land-based aircraft.

Don't forget, too, that US bombers fly far out of the range of ground missiles and guns. The only effective countermeasure, whether you can see the enemy or not, is an air force. But as I said, there wouldn't be an enemy air force after two hours. North Korean air defences would be obliterated soon after.

The reason the US has not invaded is that although they would undoubtedly win, it would probably be more costly than Iraq, and it would be a better solution to have China reign NK in under pressure. Historically, China regards Korea as a buffer zone and has always responded with force to any attack on Korea, so war with North Korea also means war with China, which is definitely a nuclear power. It would be wise to first split NK and the PRC diplomatically, and I believe this is already in progress.

Don't forget the factor of the NK regime itself. Once it looks like NK stands a chance of losing (which won't take more than 5 minutes), expect mass desertions.

American and British forces are all-volunteer organisations made of long-serving, experienced troops who have asked to serve their country and are serving a free regime.

North Korean soldiers are conscripts, drafted against their will in most cases, and are therefore inexperienced and ill-motivated. They are serving a brutal regime that has tortured and killed many of their fellow countrymen and that now expects them to give their lives to protect it.

North Korea is probably going down. I think first the US will attempt to drive a wedge between China and NK, but nevertheless the game is likely up for Pyongyang.

[FastNed]

Hello, Black Dog - this is only tangential to "Korea" but I could not let your comment on "First Strike" pass unanswered. Where-ever you read or studied on this matter, you missed the point. America always disavowed the First Strike option and its WMD position was consistent - we would never initiate a nuclear conflict but would respond to one with the full might of our forces.

" Many in the top ranks of the U.S. government (including the likes of S.A.C. commander Curtis LeMay in the 1950s) advocated a policy of preemption based on the idea that the U.S. could survive a limited nuclear exchange with the USSR." - this is simply incorrect.

I was with SAC in Nebraska for a year. Our lives were lived on an 18 minute schedule - 18 minutes was the advance warning time we would receive from the DEW Line on an incoming Soviet attack. America lived or died based upon our ability to get our planes in the air within that 18 minute period in response to a first strike by Soviet forces. We knew that we were constantly monitored and should we consistently fail to meet that schedule, America would be destroyed in a massive "First Strike".

The "MAD" Doctrine had at its core that any strike, however limited, would result in a full response with every weapon in our possession - there was no concept of "a limited nuclear exchange". Most if not all of the "MAD" Doctrine is now declassified and published in many places and there are sound geopolitical reasons for the lack of a limited response scenario.

Note that your comment about "American Altruism" motivated me to post "Is America Altruistic" - stop by and join that discussion.

[nova_satori]

You're assuming carriers will still be there. Ask the Russians how easy it is to destroy a carrier group. Their cold war stragetegy revolved around nuclear weapons on subs. Carrier groups are pathetic. One nuke and your tactical strike force is GONE. I've personnal spoke to a Russian submarine sailor. He knows how easy it is. Carrier groups are fundementally flawed aganist that sort of attack. North Korea can easily take that method and use it, and you can say goodbye to 72 planes, 5000+ sailors and billions of dollars of equipment. OR they could use a backpack method. I'm sure you know what that is.

All North Korea has to do, is launch 100-200 missiles. Only one needs to armed with a warhead. It doesn't even have to hit. A premature explosion is perfectly acceptable. There goes your ability to launch from carriers.

Kadena will be tapped. However, to take out artillery at the same time as AAA positions, you're going to need alot more fighters has.

What? 12-20 B2s? Yes, because those can destroy THOUSANDS of artillery in one pass! lol. NO. B-1bs? Possibly, but we still don't have enough. B-52s are by no way an acceptable combantant here.

While North Korea's airforce (which is in worse shape then China's) will be destroyed, this isn't Kosovo. Air power will not win this war, or save Seoul.

Yes, the US will win. However, you're missing alot more of the economic consequences and politic stances at the moment. Say goodbye to South korea. We won't have them as a trading partner for years. Japan will undoubtably be damaged, possibly to a severe level. China will see a exodus the likes the world has never seen. Manchuria will have economic problems dealing with that many refugees. That will delay China's growth, further delaying the world economy's return from recession.

Japan wants a divided Korea. Korea is the dagger pointed at the heart of Japan. They want the hermit kingdom divided. China doesn't want a pro-US country on its border. However, China will not start a war on that. China cannot even take Taiwan, much less the US.

"Don't forget the factor of the NK regime itself. Once it looks like NK stands a chance of losing (which won't take more than 5 minutes), expect mass desertions."

Define the terms of "isolation" and "Brainwashing" before you keep typing.

"North Korean soldiers are conscripts, drafted against their will in most cases, and are therefore inexperienced and ill-motivated. They are serving a brutal regime that has tortured and killed many of their fellow countrymen and that now expects them to give their lives to protect it."

Not all are conscripts. Many see the army as a way to feed themselves, their familes, and a steady paycheck. The North Korean army is decently trained, thanks to Chinese officials. Many of their soldiers believe that their goal is to serve Kim Jong II with their lives. They believe that South korea belongs to them. They are far different then Iraqi conscripts. You understatimate the power of brainwashing and isolatonism. Many of the troops, well COs are waiting for war. If the communist chinese (who i have talken to recently) believe their state propaganda, imagine how much the people of N. Korea believe of their propaganda. Remember that China is relatively open to the world. N. korea isn't. Have you ever taken courses in social science and sociology?

You still haven't answer the question of how you destroy thousands of artillery pieces in 5 minutes.

Please look up the terms of "brainwashing," and "isolationism" before posting again.

[nova_satori]

MAD doesn't work with irrational leaders with hardly anything to lose.

[FastNed]

Nova, you really must become acquainted with the customs, protocols and requirements of this Forum, especially if you plan to continue to jump into the middle of a thread.

Prior postings as well as this particular thread have discussed that the people of Seoul are hostages under the guns of North Korea and any American act could well cause several million casualties. You are free to believe what you wish of America but we will not spend those lives should we have any other choice - that decision shall be made when it is either evident or probable that Krazy Kim has placed nukes on the market. At which point, all bets are off, all other alliances are in limbo and America will act as its interests demand.

[Hugo]

You're assuming carriers will still be there. Ask the Russians how easy it is to destroy a carrier group. Their cold war stragetegy revolved around nuclear weapons on subs. Carrier groups are pathetic.

OK, this is where your ignorance really shines. The modern carrier group, the most awesome naval force ever created by man, is "pathetic." Sure, you can lob a tactical nuke and eliminate it, but you risk the enemy taking that as the signal for nuclear escalation and laying off your cities and industrial areas. Some strategy! I don't think the Russians were ever that stupid, and if you have any evidence to the contrary I'd like to hear it.

I'll tell you what General Sir John Hackett, long-standing NATO general and military strategist, had to say about Soviet nuclear policy. It was that, while the Kremlin initally viewed the nuclear weapon as just another tool and planned for a nuclear battle and a nuclear battlefield, the fact that Washington viewed nuclear weapons as separate from conventional ones forced them to rethink their strategy and develop weapons systems and strategies for the strictly conventional battlefield. After all, there is no pertinent reason why the Politburo would risk the destruction of Moscow and Leningrad for the sake of the annexation of West Germany.

those can destroy THOUSANDS of artillery in one pass! lol.

Once again with the ignorance. Artillery is support weaponry, not main battle weaponry. If US ground forces roll into Korea in strength any and all NK artillery batteries will be overrun before they've fired a second salvo. Not to mention constant air attack, incredibly accurate counterbattery fire and so forth.

The North Korean army is decently trained, thanks to Chinese officials.

Come off it! Goose-stepping makes you a better soldier? The training level of the PLA is an absolute joke.

You still haven't answer the question of how you destroy thousands of artillery pieces in 5 minutes.

Why 5 minutes? As I said, without a good ground force artillery is useless. US counterbattery fire and air support would make mincemeat of NK artillery. You might lose large parts of South Korea in the process, but that is a cross that will have to be borne. Once the full power of the US military is brought to bear the rout of the NK army will be far faster than the advance.

You seemingly have no idea how powerful the USA is. It is the world's largest, best trained and most advanced military force by a very long way. The USA does not dominate the world as Britain did in 1870, it dominates the world as Rome dominated Europe under Trajan. You might think I need to read up on sociology, but we are not discussing sociology here but military strategy and it's clear you haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about. A Russian sailor, indeed. What was his name and rank, what military district did he come from, what vessel(s) did he serve on and where?

[nova_satori]

Define "omnipotent"

Have you even spoke to a Russian that understands nuclear weapons in warfare?

First of all, what does a irrational leader, with no regard for his people, with barely anything of signifigence to lose, who is already oscrtized by the world, have to lose from destroying the center piece of American military projection?

You think Kim Jong II is rational and takes MAD into his battle plans? The only way to stall America is to bring a nuke.

The Russians were planning for nuclear war. The cold war turned hot between the two superpowers would go nuclear soon. American surface seapower would quickly be destroyed by Soviet submarine forces armed with nuclear tipped missiles. The submarines escorting ships into cuba were armed with nuclear torpedos. If they wanted to, or were willing to risk it, the blockade would quickly have fallen apart.

However, the Soviets were far more rational then Kim Jong II. That is why you and I are here talking about this. If the they were as irrational as him, we wouldn't exist. (not that we exist anyway, since nothing can ever be truely proven).

Right...because 37,000 US troops can simply WALK into North Korea, take over the artillery in 5 minutes, locate every battery, stop every salvo...No. Artillery cannot win a war. It can however, cause massive amounts of damage.

You seriously understiamte soldiers who believe they are the best, are brainwashed from day one, and are willing to sacrifice anything for their leader.

Yes, the US will win the war. However, the costs will be astronomical. Millions of lives, billions of dollars, huge damage to economies in that area....I never said the US won't win.

It seems you are brainwashed with the idea that America is omnipotent. No army is ever omnipotent. You seem to think that America might can simply do whatever, without any consequences and that we can simply just stroll in without firing a single bullet.

Isreal is near the level of the US. Look at how much problems they have. Taiwan is reaching the US in advance tech. Japan is almost to the US's level. No one in their armies believe they are omnipotent.

[Hugo]

You haven't addressed a single one of my points. You won't cite any sources and you won't justify your opinions. At times, it seems you are agreeing with me, and yet you continue this thread as though it were an argument.

[Mr Farrius]

If US ground forces roll into Korea in strength any and all NK artillery batteries will be overrun before they've fired a second salvo. Not to mention constant air attack, incredibly accurate counterbattery fire and so forth.

As I am ignorant in the area of military tactics, just how would 37,000 US troops roll into Korea without the NK knowing in advance? If there are to be more US troops stationed at the DMZ to invade NK "in strength", once again, how will that be accomplished without the NK (who has a million man army) knowing in advance?

[KrustyKidd]

First of all, what does a irrational leader, with no regard for his people, with barely anything of signifigence to lose, who is already oscrtized by the world, have to lose from destroying the center piece of American military projection?

Not much. Thank you for pointing out the danger of leaving him to make whatever weapons he desires and amplifying the call to stop him.

If the they were as irrational as him, we wouldn't exist. (not that we exist anyway, since nothing can ever be truely proven).

A depressed Raymond Descarte agonized for years over this question. The answer came suddenly "Je pense, donc je suis" Check it out with your philosophy prof.

Right...because 37,000 US troops can simply WALK into North Korea, take over the artillery in 5 minutes, locate every battery, stop every salvo...No. Artillery cannot win a war. It can however, cause massive amounts of damage.

Nova, you are right, nobody in their right mind would want to attack NK but I travel a lot so may have missed something over the last few days. Why is there a focus on occupying land in North Korea? It is about as relevent here as discussing trying to attack Iraqi forces if they were dug in on the moon. I would imagine that the problem can be solved by economic blockade, political and regional ostracization and having a nuke ready to drop on his ass if he so much as points a missile anywhere but his outhouse.

On another point mentioned by somebody already. There are hundreds and possibly thousands of people in the defense and state departement who make your profs look like grade school kids. These gents have up to the second intelligence and have done nothing for all their thousands of collective years but study military and geo political stategy from Hadrian to the last fire fight in Afganistan and Iraq. They even hire no mind high school kids to come up with off the wall crap to ensure they havn't staled their own thinking processes. I would imagine that whatever happens they won't forget to issue bullets or socks.

It seems you are brainwashed with the idea that America is omnipotent. No army is ever omnipotent. You seem to think that America might can simply do whatever, without any consequences and that we can simply just stroll in without firing a single bullet.

Isreal is near the level of the US. Look at how much problems they have. Taiwan is reaching the US in advance tech. Japan is almost to the US's level. No one in their armies believe they are omnipotent.

Yet you believe that we believe that? Why do you assume that Americans think their army is all powerful? It is an arm of the government. Economic and political agility are as important as well. These are playing in NK as we speak. To assume one American soldier will enter NK is plain dumb yet you have confined your thinking to this one off the wall scenario. This cat can be belled with ten different methods yet you again can only look at it as a military only problem.

[theloniusfleabag]

"Rene Descarte was a drunken old fart, I drink therefore I am" : Monty Python.

George W Bush has stated in a presedential security directive that the US, can and will use tactical nuclear weapons wherever and whenever they see fit.

Perhaps a bit of bluster, for that would justify nuclear weaponry usage by everyone. No one would survive. (Some indeed may be able to live out their natural lives underground, but existence on planet earth would be doomed)

MAD uses this as a deterrent, but the sabre rattling is the telling gambit. "Don't attack me or I'll kill us all" is a lot different than "Do as I say or I'll kill us all"

NK is a far stickier wicket that Iraq was. I would wager that the US knew all along that Iraq had no WMD's, but is unsure of the repercussions of conflict with NK.

As for military strategy, I could kick anyone's butt at any 'game' involving strategy, except maybe chess, because I am quite rusty.

[KrustyKidd]

George W Bush has stated in a presedential security directive that the US, can and will use tactical nuclear weapons wherever and whenever they see fit.

Of course he is going to say that. The value of Nuclear Weapons when you have a versitile mobile large well trained army is mainly deterence. To state you will not use them is to encourage an adversary to attack you. It may seem fatuous to say but it is helpful to the enemy in that it can save them a lot of grief.

NK is a far stickier wicket that Iraq was. I would wager that the US knew all along that Iraq had no WMD's, but is unsure of the repercussions of conflict with NK.

Consequences of conflict with NK are terrible. They know that and NK knows that. Brinkmanship it's called. NK wants money and we want them to get rid of it's Nuke program. We can't show we are lowering ourselves to extortion and they can't appear to being bought. I'd say that there is a lot going on under the table here.

Rene, ya, that's it. So true though, just when you thought you were off the hook and didn't really exist along comes logic.

I like chess but used to play that game Risk with a bunch of buddies. We had two boards and so many rules we had made up in order to lower the chance element that it wasn't funny. Even had Paratroopers lol.

[nova_satori]

Not much. Thank you for pointing out the danger of leaving him to make whatever weapons he desires and amplifying the call to stop him.

However, he will use them should he be facing the military might of a combined of South Korea, Japanese and American taskforces.

Would you use a weapon if no one was threatning you?

Or would you use a weapon if you were facing sheer destruction?

However this matters little. The US will not attack North Korea. China, Japan and South Korea wouldn't let us.

[FastNed]

Rather than respond individually, let me respond to a fallacy that many are following in their posts. Many of you have an absolute misunderstanding of the strategic posture of America, and of many other Countries involved in this North Korean problem.

China, Russia, Japan, South Korea and most of the Far East are terrified that America will take one specific action: that America will remove its 40,000 troops for use in another Theater and advise that this is a Regional Problem which they must settle among themselves!

Why do you think those Countries are sleepless over this possible response by America?

[Hugo]

As I am ignorant in the area of military tactics, just how would 37,000 US troops roll into Korea without the NK knowing in advance?

They wouldn't. And much would it avail them, I'm sure, as it availed the Iraqi armies in 1991 after 6 months to prepare and even longer in the knowledge that military opposition would probably come.

This is a silly point to debate anyway. A second Korean War is pretty unlikely, and if Krazy Kim really thought he stood a snowball's chance in hell of surviving such a war he wouldn't be so keen to build nukes, now, would he? Don't take it from me, Nova, take it from him.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear FastNed,

I would say you are close in you theory of American posturing in S. Korea but not exactly right. The linch-pin has become Taiwanese independence. 'Mao' and 'ists'

chased Chiang Kai-Shek to Formosa and seek to finally win that battle. The US may be able to let S Korea fall to the North, but China still calls the shots and their 'eye on the prize' is chastising the 'naughty province' of Taiwan.

The US would not let that go without combat and the US doesn't produce enough bullets to take on a nation of 1+ billion. It would almost be more humane to use nukes.

The US is practicing inderdiction techniques in the region, not for protecting S Korea, but for Taiwan. THAT would not be construed as a regional matter. Confrontation between the Koreas is merely the sideshow.

[nova_satori]

Hugo: America respects ONE and ONLY ONE THING when in the context of war. NUCLEAR WEAPONS. Civilian casulities are low on the list. Loss of troops, near the top, but not that close. Working nuclear weapons are only thing that will stop America from attacking you.

As a Indian reporter said after Desert Shield: If you go to war with American, bring a nuke.

[Hugo]

Working nuclear weapons are only thing that will stop America from attacking you.

Or being French. Or British. Or Belgian. Or Russian. Or Filipino. Or being from any of the other hundreds of countries in the world that America hasn't attacked. This point of yours is frankly ridiculous, and I won't waste my time "addressing" it further. Get back to me when you have something to say.

[nova_satori]

What is wrong with you? Do you understand the damage nuclear weapons can do? The modern tactical nuke can obliterate divisons in miliseconds.

First of all, if you're ALREADY on the list, (thanks to bush, they restarted their program, essentially, he restarted the problem Clinton contained), the only way to prevent an attack is with nukes.

Right-wing fanatics will cause the end of the world. Hopefully God will just kill us before with rains of fire and brimestone, plagues of flesh eating locus, huge ravenous beasts, horrible dieases, and acidic vapors.

God's ways will be far less painful.

[Hugo]

This reply is merely to state that I have no reply. I think your last post has proven my argument better than anything I could say, for you've just shouted your own complete ignorance and bigotry from the rooftops.

I'm amazed you've been allowed to write such tripe on this forum, to be frank.

[nova_satori]

I'm amazed that people that believe the US to be noble exist in the age of the Internet.

I'm also amazed that people who believe state propaganda exist in the age of the Internet (unless your mainland China, then i give props to the communist propaganda machine)

I love how to condemn my arguments, but believe that only you are right. Shoot first, shoot second, and never ask questions. Islam is a horrible. Iraq had a nuke pointed at the US. Monkeys rule the oceans (whoops, but it makes as much sense as everything else). Bush is God. Christanity has never done anything bad. Islam is the root of all hatred in the world. Even hate for dirity trashcans.

Your simple act of not replying to anything proves your inability to concede.