Post #373,254
4/2/13 2:00:51 AM
|
It's not a matter of if but when there is war again on the
Korean peninsula.
Availability and effectiveness of things like Iron Dome (to mitigate the perceived artillery threat to Seoul) will disrupt the current balance of power.
If Iron Dome (or similar/equivalent systems) works and is available, then one of the main reasons not to kick the DPRK in the knackers - the destruction of Seoul - is gone.
The DPRK has a very large standing army but probably next to no effective supply chain and no prospect of air superiority; their durability would be minimal. Not only that, but fighting an army like the DPRK's is exactly what modern armies (i.e. the US and South Koreans) are trained for.
It would be like Iraq 2003 all over again, but with an order of magnitude larger body count.
The aftermath doesn't even bear thinking about. 20M starving indoctrinated but leaderless people who've never known anything else? Where do you begin?
|
Post #373,255
4/2/13 2:02:40 AM
|
Also
the DPRK's army and its commanders have no operational experience whatsoever.
The US (and let's face it, this is who'd be fighting/running the war from south of the 38th parallel) has this in spades.
|
Post #373,257
4/2/13 7:43:25 AM
|
Things change when you're fighting for your land.
Iraq was supposed to be able to defeat Iran easily (chaos in Iran, surprise, modern arms and tactics, 10,000 tanks, etc., etc.). It didn't work out that way.
We don't really know how it would play out on the ground.
Given time, we would win. But how long would it take? Korea has had decades to prepare for the war they have said is coming (tunnels, hardening, etc., etc.).
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #373,262
4/2/13 10:08:29 AM
|
dunno, that line would be vimy ridge for a long time
with about ten times the artillery.
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 57 years. meep
|
Post #373,267
4/2/13 11:15:02 AM
|
But you forget...
Artillery is susceptible to Smart bombs and traditional bombing. Especially with the planes we have and how they are equipped. Even the old B-52s are able to precision bomb now.
Plus drone strikes are still cheaper than most bombing runs.
--
greg@gregfolkert.net
PGP key 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05
Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C
|
Post #373,269
4/2/13 12:02:17 PM
|
Will not matter unless we strike 1st
Soul is range of the 1st bombardment.
They can wipe it out on the 1st salvo.
|
Post #373,271
4/2/13 12:33:26 PM
|
not really, worse scenario
http://www.iiss.org/...ance-on-the-kore/
Nonetheless, despite shortages of spare parts, fuel and training time, North KoreaÂs conventional capabilities pose a significant threat to allied forces and South KoreaÂs population. For example, North KoreaÂs artillery capability does not require sophisticated tactics nor modes of operation to pose a threat to Seoul. In any conflict, North Korean artillery, firing from fortified positions near the DMZ, could initially deliver a heavy bombardment on the South Korean capital. Allied counter-battery fire and air strikes would eventually reduce North KoreaÂs artillery capability, but not before significant damage and high casualties had been inflicted on Seoul. Similarly, the North Korean air force could launch surprise attacks against military and civilian targets throughout South Korea before allied air superiority was established. The potential delivery of chemical or biological weapons by artillery, short-range missiles and aerial bombs is an additional threat  especially to unprotected civilians.
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 57 years. meep
|
Post #373,272
4/2/13 12:39:36 PM
|
Pearl Harbor, Mk II
At what point does a preemptive attack start seeming like a good idea?
--
Drew
|
Post #373,273
4/2/13 4:20:50 PM
|
for them or us?
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 57 years. meep
|
Post #373,290
4/2/13 8:57:29 PM
|
Never?
Once it's taken, any chance of moral superiority is forfeit. Look at the quagmire Iraq turned into.
-Mike
@MikeVitale42
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 Historical Review of Pennsylvania
|
Post #373,292
4/2/13 9:19:11 PM
|
I meant them
--
Drew
|
Post #373,295
4/2/13 9:32:26 PM
|
Yep...
Look at the quagmire WWII turned into for the Japanese and Germany.
--
greg@gregfolkert.net
PGP key 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05
Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C
|
Post #373,300
4/3/13 6:06:40 AM
|
Re: Yep...
When, since the industrial revolution kicked in, has a country started a war and won? The U.S. in Grenada was more of a mugging than a war. Was Iraq (either time) a win? Doesn't look like it to me. Germany, second time around did better than Iraq though, and they didn't exactly win either.
Aggressors don't seem to win big anymore. I could be wrong...
|
Post #373,299
4/3/13 1:36:14 AM
|
Marlowe? That you?
|
Post #373,313
4/3/13 10:04:35 AM
|
:-) !!!
Except he would take the other side of it.
Alex
|
Post #373,316
4/3/13 11:24:52 AM
|
I suspect his embarassment
is what's keeping him away from this place.
I for one would mock him mercilessly for his certainty in the bullshit ice cream he ate with a big fat smile on his face.
Jingoistic asshole that he was.
|
Post #373,372
4/3/13 6:08:49 PM
|
Well of course he was, to you
Your just some damn furriner.
|
Post #373,388
4/4/13 3:33:18 AM
|
AS's link contains things that seem to contradict that
Only a fraction of NK's artillery is within range - the missiles and 170mm guns, and even then, they can only reach the outskirts.
I read elsewhere on the interwebs (so it's obviously completely true) that the failure rate of NK munitions is 25%.
After all, when the Dear Leader comes round to your factory and asks you whether all your rockets work, do you:
(a) Say "Yes! Thanks to your insightful leadership and guidance, we have completely eliminated errors in our enlightened manufacturing processes!", and then amend the paperwork accordingly, shipping everything in the quota to the army as required, being careful to put your rival (at the other factory)'s name on the dispatch note
(b) Say "No! Our slave-based factories inevitably produce a load of old shite, so we must throw away a quarter of everything we make. Under arrest, you say? Off to the re-education camp, along with my entire family, you say?"
|
Post #373,256
4/2/13 7:36:57 AM
|
Dunno.
I thought the biggest problem with Seoul was that it was within artillery range. Iron Dome and the like won't help much with that (even if it does work, which is debatable)...
There's lots of drawings and speculation on NK hardware and tactics here (from 2009) - http://www.militaryp...rikes!-%282009%29
A major military conflict with NK would be a disaster. As you say, sure, we would "win", but what comes after? The Koreans are one big family, but the northern half is filled with Starving Crazy Uncles. Once hostilities end, or maybe even once hostilities start, millions will want to try to leave. (I think that's probably the main reason why China apparently is working on the border - they don't want people thinking about running across the first chance they get.) We can break NK's military infrastructure from the air (but how quickly? Quick enough to prevent Seoul from being flattened??). We can destroy their electronic communications. But what about at the unit level? We don't want to be on the ground above the 38th Parallel, but if we destroy their leadership and infrastructure someone has to be. Are we willing to let the South run things by themselves? Are they willing and able to? "Land war in Asia" is something that we must always have in our minds...
China and Russia have had a red line about "external interference" for decades. It seems to me that something really big would have to happen before they changed their mind about that, and even then, they may require conditions for any assent (or lack of assistance to the other side). If the US and the South look to be "winning" (or winning too easily), they may feel the need to help prop-up the North (e.g. agreeing to a change in leadership but no defeat by the US and the South - but how could that work given the cult of personality and history there?). It's something that has to be considered.
There are lots of ramifications.
I don't think Kim and his generals want to start a war, but I do suspect that they want a small battle to illustrate that they're serious and important and need to be treated with deference. The Kims seem to have to prove themselves, and seemingly the only way they can do so is with military equipment and arms. They apparently feel the need to ratchet things up after the sanctions were tightened. I have no special knowledge or insight, but I wouldn't be surprised if they decide to bombard or even take an island or sink another ship. I hope that we and the South are thinking seriously about how to respond to such a provocation. The US and SK need to be thinking a few moves ahead and not just responding to the immediate circumstances...
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
