Korea... next?

[Pathy 0]

The question in my mind is, if NK was to attack SK, would they be dumb enough to nuke SK? If so, your not going to want (or more, be able to) to land ANYTHING major there.....unless its low yeild nukes that disperse quickly that they use......

[hellfish6 7]

I'm pretty sure Japan would get involved somehow, as Japan may consider that protecting South Korea is synonymous with protecting Japan. I'm willing to bet that billions upon billions of dollars worth of Japanese investments are tied up in South Korea - I can't believe that Japan would just sit out the fight. Especially if North Korea starts sending subs to interdict the shipping lanes in the Tsushima Straights or elsewhere in the northern Pacific.

I am willing to believe that Japan, Australia, Canada, the US, Britain, and possibly even the EU would intervene. It's in nobody's best interest to have North Korea take over the South.

[hellfish6 7]

The question in my mind is, if NK was to attack SK, would they be dumb enough to nuke SK? If so, your not going to want (or more, be able to) to land ANYTHING major there.....unless its low yeild nukes that disperse quickly that they use......

Would it be worth it to rule over a nuclear wasteland?

[johnnylump 0]

The feeling among wiser military minds than mine is that the US and South Korea could lick North Korea, but at such a vast cost that such a war is not worth fighting unless forced to.

The NK army is huge, but way behind in technology; DIA open sources list T-34s in their inventory. No evidence they can detect stealth aircraft. And, apparently, they are behind in health; there was a recent claim from the Pentagon that the NK military lowered its height minimum to below five feet because everybody is so malnourished.

Still, there are indeed something like 10,000 artillery pieces in range of Seoul, plus, it is thought, one or two or perhaps even six nuclear weapons, though the NK's capability to deliver them is unclear. Yes, they have an untested missile that can reach the West Coast, but are their nukes small enough to fit on the missile? It's not known. And a missile isn't the only way to get a nuke to an American city.

So I think there's some sense that war isn't in anybody's interests, including the North Koreans. Yet they still proliferate missiles and may consider proliferating nuclear technology.

And any negotation is of uncertain value -- the North Koreans have not held to their promises made during the Clinton administration -- as evidenced when they restarted plutonium reprocessing.

It's a problem without a near-term solution. So you do what you can, keep them talking, monitor them closely, and try to get China _ the only country with any leverage with Kim's regime _ to see that a belligerent North Korea is not in its best interests, so they can apply what pressure they are able, and hope, somehow, the ruling clique in Pyongyang sees another way.

My dos pesos. Fire away ...

[hellfish6 7]

The 3rd Marine Division is based in Okinawa. And the 3rd Marine Brigade at Hawaii. I bet they'd be there within a week, followed by the 172nd Infantry Brigade in Alaska, whatever parts of the 25th Infantry Division that aren't deployed to Iraq or A-stan right now and any other Guard units that are currently slated to go to Iraq but haven't deployed yet (48th Infantry Brigade in Georgia, 278th Armored Cavalry Regiment from Tennessee, 155th Armored Brigade in Mississippi, 35th Infantry Division in Kansas/Illinois, 40th Infantry Division in California, etc.)

[Pathy 0]

The question in my mind is, if NK was to attack SK, would they be dumb enough to nuke SK? If so, your not going to want (or more, be able to) to land ANYTHING major there.....unless its low yeild nukes that disperse quickly that they use......

Would it be worth it to rule over a nuclear wasteland?

Thats why i say, "If NK was dumb enough".....you dont nuke an area you intend to rule.....

[Pathy 0]

Johnny is right in that, if Bush doesn't get China on side, he would be royally screwed. The USA couldnt cope with a war against China as well IMO, they have a huge army, some great technology, a good airforce, good tanks....the only area where we probably beat them is the Chinese Navy.

China's strategic weakness is also its lack of Oil, even outside a wartime situation it struggles. As long as its deprived of oil, you are crippling its industry, as well as those many thousands of tanks and trucks the same could be said of the USA i suppose.....if China got involved, the war would probably, in the long term, be won or lost on who controlled the oil supplies.

[DracoPaladore 0]

I am willing to believe that Japan, Australia, Canada, the US, Britain, and possibly even the EU would intervene. It's in nobody's best interest to have North Korea take over the South.

If I remember, the Korean war was a large effort by UN countries all around.  Columbia, Australia, Canada, Italy, and numerous others.

I think a complete list

In otherwords, since the cease fire was signed under the UN, wouldn't that mean that any UN member with force would, or could, participate if the war started? I mean, the UNs mission in Korea was a big step, if I remember.

I think that this isn't just a "US" Problem, but instead a larger issue that could bring the majority of the world into it.

[Pathy 0]

As long as the USA doesnt start it, then in theory, yes.

[Tovarish 0]

I wonder what, if anything, Russia would do in the case of another war with NK. They do after all, share a border with them.

[bucket man 2]

Im not a great fan of Chuck Norris nor do I think US army is anywhere near invincible.  

The reason that Koreans did so good in the Korean war was that back then, both sides were technolocigally at the same level. Plus they had China to back them up.

If the war would erupt, China would never directly send its troops to help NK.

Theyd brobably train them and give them stuff like radars but thats it.

And as somebody said its VERY theoretical that they would manage to shoot a nuclear missile to California. The reason why TBA claims they can, might be to keep the people scared.

Not to mention that US and SK would eventually get total air superiority and destroy their crappy T-62's.

Last time NK's military hardware was modern was in the 70's.

Ofcourse if NK made a suprise attack they would brobably overrun SK much like in the first war.

After that there would be another Inchon but this time there would be no chinese soldiers to help them.

My 50000 soldiers a day was exagarated(?) but still their losses would be huge and in my "vision" of the war I didnt take the fact that US troops are tied in Iraq to account. That was deliberate.

I too cant think how it would be so hard to convince people who have very little food, are under constant threat of labor camps and have no freedom, not to fight against the US and SK troops.

Iraq was different. They had food and electricity something NK has very little. 90% of the iraqis were pretty happy of their lives and their relatives were not dragged to death camps.

[johnnylump 0]

I imagine Russia would see which way the winds were blowing, geopolitically speaking. I don't see them siding with NK under any circumstances _ North Korea is truly an international pariah, with China having the slimmest of influence. You might see Russian arms companies mucking around, but Federation troops? It's not in Russia's interests.

If it was an internationally unpopular war _ that is, if the EU sat out _ I imagine they would sit out Korean War II, as well.

If everybody threw in, a la Gulf War I, they might go along.

I think much of the same goes for China, tho I don't see Chinese troops driving on Pyongyang. And China cannot, technically, match the U.S. military in a head-to-head fight (but check back in 2030 or so), and their relations with Pyongyang are not worth losing bazillions in trade dollars with the United States and any allies who would fight alongisde us. It's just not profitable national strategy. China would probably sit out any open fighting and score points by portraying itself as an international leader as it tried to negotiate a peace agreement. Whether it would quietly pass intelligence to either side is an open question; it would probably serve as a conduit for secret communications.

Still ... a near-term US v China scenario is fun to wargame (which is far more likely in a Taiwan contigency rather than a Korean one) . I see the US going after China's ability to project power -- it's navy and air force -- and initially leaving the army and infrastructure alone. I do wonder if we'd leave their 20 ICBMs alone ... I wouldn't want to force a panic launch in a purely conventional war.

... I do find it difficult to imagine Japanese troops on the Korean peninsula under any circumstances, except for perhaps reconstruction. While Japan does have commerical interests there, Korea recalls Japan as occupiers. In addition, Japan's Self-Defense Force, while technically capable, is not able to function offensively -- their officers do not study offensive maneuver as most militaries do. You would be most likely see naval support; Japan would instead concentrate on protecting its homeland and oil tanker routes, I think.

One final part of the dynamic is what a unified Korea would mean for the rest of that part of the world, particularly if they unified peacefully, or with minimum damage to the south's infrastructure. Suddenly, you have a nuclear-armed economic powerhouse with a massive trained army and the strength to have an independent foreign policy. Japan and China would certainly take note.

Guess I'm up to four pesos now.

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]New N. Korean Missiles Said to Threaten U.S.

Tue Aug 3, 2004 11:42 AM ET

By Mark Trevelyan

BERLIN (Reuters) - North Korea is deploying new land- and sea-based ballistic missiles that can carry nuclear warheads and may have sufficient range to hit the United States, according to the authoritative Jane's Defense Weekly.

In an article due to appear Wednesday, Jane's said the two new systems appeared to be based on a decommissioned Soviet submarine-launched ballistic missile, the R-27.

It said communist North Korea had acquired the know-how during the 1990s from Russian missile specialists and by buying 12 former Soviet submarines which had been sold for scrap metal but retained key elements of their missile launch systems.

Jane's, which did not specify its sources, said the sea-based missile was potentially the more threatening of the two new weapons systems.

"It would fundamentally alter the missile threat posed by the DPRK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea) and could finally provide its leadership with something that it has long sought to obtain -- the ability to directly threaten the continental U.S.," the weekly said.

Apart from targeting the United States, South Korea or Japan, cash-strapped North Korea might seek to sell the technology to countries that have bought its missiles in the past, with Iran a prime candidate, the article added.

Ian Kemp, news editor of Jane's Defense Weekly, said North Korea would only spend the money and effort on developing such missiles if it intended to fit them with nuclear warheads.

"It's pretty certain the North Koreans would not be developing these unless they were intended for weapons of mass destruction warheads, and the nuclear warhead is far and away the most potent of those," he told Reuters.

NUCLEAR POTENTIAL UNCLEAR

North Korea pulled out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in January 2003 and is locked in long-running crisis talks with the United States, China, Russia, Japan and South Korea over terms for scrapping its atomic weapons program.

The extent of that program remains unclear, although North Korea's deputy foreign minister was quoted as telling a senior U.S. official last year that Pyongyang possessed nuclear weapons.

Jane's said the new land-based system had an estimated range of 2,500 to 4,000 km (1,560 to 2,500 miles), and the sea-based system, launchable from a submarine or a ship, had a range of at least 2,500 km.

"If you can get a missile aboard a warship, in particular aboard a submarine...you can move your submarine to strike at targets such as Hawaii or the United States, just as examples. Whereas it would be much more difficult to actually develop a ground-launched missile to achieve that sort of a range," Kemp said.

Until now only the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China have been known to possess submarine-launched nuclear weapons, although there has been speculation that Israel has a similar capability.

Jane's said North Korea appeared to have acquired the R-27 technology from Russian missile experts based in the Urals city of Chelyabinsk. It said one such group was detained in 1992 when about to fly to North Korea, but others visited later.

It said Pyongyang was also helped by the purchase, through a Japanese trading company, of 12 decommissioned Russian Foxtrot-class and Golf II-class submarines which were sold for scrap in 1993.

It said the missiles and electronic firing systems had been removed, but the vessels retained their launch tubes and stabilization sub-systems.

[bucket man 2]

Again there are alot of may's in there.

[Akira 0]

Sure their conventional army would probably drop their guns quite quickly too. They aren't very well fed and most come from horrible backgrounds I imagine, but the population I think is mostly very devoted to the old gran with bad taste in clothing (Kim Jong Il). Don't forget they are almost worshipping him. But that would probably fall apart quite quickly....

And their conventional forces aren't what I am worried about, even the thoughts of nuclear blasts in Japan, China or anywhere else in the world makes me cringe and cry like a baby.

Thats ridiculous.

Their army will not "fall apart easily". Remember the Korean War? We just about got our ass kicked. And the only thing that has changed since then is they have gotten MORE weapons and more ADVANCED weapons.

Wasn't Kim Il Sung still bossing the country during the Korean war?

My image of the Korean people is that they would be quite unhappy with their current ruler. But brainwashing is quite a powerful tool....

Ummm...NO

[Akira 0]

Ahh North Korea,

Now first off the U.S. didn't get it's ass kicked in the First War. In fact U.S. Troops almost conquered the entire peninsula, until US troops encroached too much on Chineese Territory, and China's response was a 1/4 million man army force, with more and more Chinese forces pushing through everyday. Which forced a retreat and finally the creation of the DMZ.

Umm...yes....yes we did get our ass kicked until a multi-national force was lauched.

Ever hear of the Pusan perimeter? That because they were surrounded. We held a tiny little scrap of land on the tip.

That's when we pushed them back and thats when we went too far.

Quote[/b] ]Modern Day, Even though most North Koreans lay extremly loyal to their leader, i believe this mindset would break, once ideas from the outside world, finally entered throughout their culture, these people know nothing else, their borders are closed because NK would have no population left.

How would these ideas get there exactly? You think they are going to listen to pamphlets or the leader thats been indoctrinating them.

Quote[/b] ]Militarily, once the U.S. mobilizied the military forces needed to defeat the NK, The NK would be decisivley and conventionally crushed, their army is not so well fed, and have much less experience then that of the U.S. Japan, and SK, their airforce is outdated as is their navy, civilian casulties would be high on both sides, but conventionally the U.S. would pull off a decisivie victory

Pipe dream.

[DracoPaladore 0]

Quote[/b] ]Militarily, once the U.S. mobilizied the military forces needed to defeat the NK, The NK would be decisivley and conventionally crushed, their army is not so well fed, and have much less experience then that of the U.S. Japan, and SK, their airforce is outdated as is their navy, civilian casulties would be high on both sides, but conventionally the U.S. would pull off a decisivie victory

Sounds like an exerpt from 1984.

[stgn 39]

I wouldnt say NK military is big of a threat. I mean sure they have lots of men but training is poor and their tanks are from the 50's. Aircraft are all some old junk except MiG-29's and those are brobably not in flight condition.

Ofcourse its not the same as flat desert with no cover but they dont have anything to stop US tanks IF they decided to go in with force. Id be more concerned about their artillery wich can pound Seoul to dust in 40 minutes.

After that the artillery would be only a memory and the last thing they could do is shoot couple of nukes in Japan or SK.

I also dont believe that they could reach California. Theoretically maybe but missiles would brobably fall to the ocean before they reach their target.

That said their conventional military wouldnt last against US and SK. They would loose 50000 men a day.

lol, bucket man your funny...50,000 a day...been watchin too many  movies bro....if anyone would be losing large numbers of lives a day it would be the SK civilians for the simple fact that the war would be in THEIR cities and NK doctrine would not be like ours to avoid civilian casualites at all costs..we'd be almost pushed into the sea before reinforcements could arrive..get off the holllywood hoopla dude as said before a war with NK would be costly on ALL sides

Well I saw a TV program abut the Iraq war where a american division chrushed an attacking Iraqie one whit out takking eny casualties, it even had the commander of the Iraqie division in the pogram.

Some crasy thorts now if we have a war and all that then if China join on NK side, the US could send in Sam Fischer (or somebody simular) to India and do some sabotage and blame it on China then they would surely have to atleast show some force and this would mean that China would not be able to fully support a war in Korea = less Resistance.

Or if you where to go to war whit NK you could send in some B2 carrying chemical weapons and drop it on there troops(and hope it would not hit so meany civils).

And what about the US using tactical nukes or MOAB on confirmed ennemy nukes.

Now Bush could wait til the US develops a functioning Missile shield?? then the chance of hitting California would be minimal.

What about assinating the NK ruler(Sam Fischer/John Clark and Ding Chavez mission ) then surly it would cause some disarey in NK.

STGN

[johnnylump 0]

This is a Defense Intelligence Agency document released under the Freedom of Information Act. Pretty good readout on NK's military. It's also 5.5 MB in pdf form.

US military handbook on North Korea

[hellfish6 7]

Rock on, Johhnylump, rock on. Cool document.

[stgn 39]

Im not a great fan of Chuck Norris nor do I think US army is anywhere near invincible.  

Wake up until a suficient anti Nuclear missile system is developed the USA is Invincible maby not on a single battlefield but over all you realy have no chance against them(if you want a world where there live humans in that is).

STGN

[denoir 0]

I agree with Akira. NK is not likely to be an easy target. And today it's out of the question. The US military is already undermanned in Iraq - there's not enough manpower for any larger scale invasion.

Secondly, the nuclear issue is not something to ignore. A year or two ago there were headlines that the latest geneartion NK ballistic missiles could probably reach the US west coast. The status of NK's nuclear program is fairly unknown. It's possible that they have several warheads already and they'll have it for sure at the time that the US military will be free of Iraq. And then we're potentially talking about tens of millions of dead Americans in case of a nuclear first strike. MAD only works when you don't plan on invading each other. Faced with a total invasion, no nuclear-capable country in the world would hesitate about using nuclear weapons.

Europe has no interest in the region and is probably not capable of a full scale invasion. Russia is passive - we can be happy if they're not helping NK. China hasn't got too much against NK either.

Bottom line - when a country has nuclear capabilities and an intercontinental ballistic delivery system, it is immune.

IMO, we should wait out North Korea. We should try to have as good relations with them as possible and through open trade influence them. China has changed radically over the years and so will NK. If we have good open relations with them, there is no reason to to be worried about the nukes.

Of course the down side is that nobody can then guarantee the safety of South Korea.

[stgn 39]

I think that we in the west are a bigger threat to humanity than NK will ever be and by attacking them we just proove my point.

Sure thousands of North Koreans dies every year because we do not act but many more people dies in Africa because of our ignorance. Spend the money on a serious and honest project for the development of Africa instead.

Bull"bib" - first part

So what they will be able to take more of the "our jobs" and what is it gonna help if we pay for everything then we will just end up haveing alot of Money adicted countries which fall apart when the moneys stops what good will that do??

And If we whent in quick and made a good health system for exsample that would only be good in a short period cause it would problery result in an Baby Boom(nobody would die) which would result in there being to meany humans, no food even bigger problem than sickness.

I think the right way to do it is somewhat simular to the one which is used today where you take it slow so that you don't suddenly hae millions of people whit even darker future.

Also if you where to take the money from the military you would have alot of workless people no selfdefence(war is unfortunetly somthing that never is gonna stop comming) and whit no self defence whats the point of living when you cant protect your valuis you have no right.

STGN

[llauma 0]

I think that we in the west are a bigger threat to humanity than NK will ever be and by attacking them we just proove my point.

Sure thousands of North Koreans dies every year because we do not act but many more people dies in Africa because of our ignorance. Spend the money on a serious and honest project for the development of Africa instead.

Bull"bib" - first part

So what they will be able to take more of the "our jobs" and  what is it gonna help if we pay for everything then we will just end up haveing alot of Money adicted countries which fall apart when the moneys stops what good will that do??

And If we whent in quick and made a good health system for exsample that would only be good in a short period cause it would problery result in an Baby Boom(nobody would die) which would result in there being to meany humans, no food even bigger problem than sickness.

I think the right way to do it is somewhat simular to the one which is used today where you take it slow so that you don't suddenly hae millions of people whit even darker future.

Also if you where to take the money from the military you would have alot of workless people no selfdefence(war is unfortunetly somthing that never is gonna stop comming) and whit no self defence whats the point of living when you cant protect your valuis you have no right.

STGN

I'm not saying the west should feed the people in the developing countries.. As I said we should help them develope and for that to become reality we need to give them fair trade agreements etc.. They have no chance to develope with the current system where we make it impossible.

Western companies and countries are often to blame for the conflicts in Africa. The population is growing rapidly and HIV/AIDS and other diseases are spreading so obviously something is wrong and we need to act.

Sure you need to have a defence according to your needs but isn't it more likely that people who are friends with their neighbours can keep the house unlocked than a rich and rude man living in the ghetto?

If the values you want to protect includes taking advantage of the poor and ignoring them when they are in need of help then I don't give much for those values.

[EiZei 0]

The population is growing rapidly and HIV/AIDS and other diseases are spreading so obviously something is wrong and we need to act.

(un?)fortunately the latter could solve the former in the long run.