Quote:
Originally Posted by Webstral
What I like about the paper Matt linked us to is the idea that war in Korea is not simply a matter of dropping some, or a slew, of precision munitions on NK conventional forces as they strike south across the DMZ. It's not even about firing a ton of cruise missiles and other precision munitions at targets in the PDRK to wreck the North Korean ability to wage war. Even if we achieve a smashing conventional victory in defeating Northern aggression against the South, we are confronted with the North's possible NBC actions, possible ongoing infiltration and sabotage, possible attacks on shipping by NK submarines, and the ongoing existence of the regime. If the loss of a conventional war in Korea leads to the collapse of the Kim regime, the crisis takes on a whole new dimension that is not amenable to solution by JDAM. If Iraq and Afghanistan have shown us anything, it's that we can't skimp on occupation forces. Where are a half-million (or more) riflemen supposed to come from? I'm past the point where I'm going to volunteer for a year of peacekeeping in Korea, and I'm too old to be drafted.
Not all problems can be solved with high explosives.
Webstral
|
Firstly - these are just opinions that I want to share to see what others think of them - and since the thread is somewhat political - there is no intent to provoke etc etc .Just saying - giving my 2 cents ,I would be happy to read a reply that proves me wrong as I care not for any dictatorship,but as of late has concluded that the situation seems bleak for the good guys.
As it stands today - the US/ROK could not satisfactorily win a second Korean war .I will explain what I mean by "win" - but in essence what Web says - you might kill most of their troops,down their MIGs and get three major damage results to each T-55 they have .They will still need to be invaded and pacified at a cost geater than Iraq and other operations combined.there is little in the way of natural resources to help pay the bill .And drastic measures such as a draft AND/OR an enthusiastic coalition of allies with big contributions is needed.In todays economy this doesnt seem possible.
That USAF pilot who said it would all be over in a matter of hours cannot be expected to be taken seriously .
The NK forces has had over 50 years to dig in ,stock up and prepare for round two .Whereas the west and the UN lead coalition has tried to avoid the war sparking up again ( its not formally over ) and opted for a hope for peace ,the NK has thrived on the policy of tension -indeed their main rationale for keeping the elites in power over there has been the image they have created of the West as a dangerous and unthrustworthy enemy that needs to be guarded against at all times - lest "paradise" be lost .
A North Korea on the offensive in traditional terms is higly unlikely .There is little chance of hordes of NK troops crossing the DMZ .In the open , the allies have the upper hand.
To expose the army to the USAF and other branches airpower would be folly - the Norks know this , and in my opinion they have tailored their military to oppose the US and ROK forces in a defensive manner that is laid out in a way that the conflict will drag out and become a stalemate or war of attrition .
In a defensive battle , the relative superiority of the US/ROK/UN forces would be canceled out to some extent - I believe to the extent that it would in effect be a huge gamble to try a military solution with the NK.
A win will not be assured -even in terms of beating their military forces conventionally .( Wow- western militaries loosing a conventional all out war /or a draw - a situation unheard of for a long time .)
If they can achieve this protracted battle , the political situation in the ROK and the US will turn to their advantage and the war will simmer down and new talks will be held and the cease fire will once again take effect .
Only now , the North Koreans will have a galvanized populace behind them ,the leaders will have been proven right .
The tribulations that the sanctions and economic mismanagment has caused the civilians will not lead to popular uprising or regime change - they will only lead to continued suffering for the populace and strengthen the position of the Kims or the junta that will follow them once they are gone .
As for the Chinese intervening on "our " side - it is possible given the close economic ties between the West and China - but they face the exact same military problem at the nothern border and in its hinterland as the west does at the 38th parallell.The Norks have fortified this direction too - north of Pyongyang is a major fortified area etc .
Add into the equation that the Norks have the possibility to strike against international shipping lanes,possibly have wmds,that they have Seoul and 10 million South Koreans in range of their artillery, the fact that the US would need 12 months -probably much longer - to build up a force to overthrow the regime .
I dare say that the reason that they havent already been hit by us is the fact that it just isnt possible to win unless you get the world to accept millions of dead and major disturbances in global economy as a price.
all in my humble opinion of course .