T2K Today: Korea

[Webstral]

There are so many variables. I've just read a piece by a USAF pilot who thinks we'll finish it all in two hours. I hope he's right, but the Greeks taught us the dangers of hubris.

All of the planning that has gone into this thing makes me think that for every measure there is a countermeasure and a counter-countermeasure ad nauseum. How much do the NKs know about our capabilities? What kinds of countermeasures have they taken at the strategic, operational, and tactical levels? To what degree is our firepower going to be so overwhelming that even the NKs can stand against it, and to what degree will our firepower be neutralized by imaginative and/or effective countermeasures? I honestly don't know the answers. In the mid-90's, I might have said I had a loose grasp on what was going on in Korea. Now, I just don't have any current information.

What I do know is that I am very, very wary of accepting the idea that we would destroy the DPRK's ability to wage war in the space of a few hours. That just seems too good to be true. It also implies that the NKs haven't thought this thing through. Comparisons between Iraq and North Korea have at least as many entries in the unlike column as the alike column.

Hopefully, it's all just posturing. Hopefully, something won't go terribly wrong somewhere as everyone runs around playing their part during the posturing.

Webstral

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Webstral

Hopefully, it's all just posturing. Hopefully, something won't go terribly wrong somewhere as everyone runs around playing their part during the posturing.

The Watchcon went to 2 when Kim Il-Sung died and Kim Jong-Il took over. We were worried and closely monitoring the situation in North Korea for about a month. We were ready to go at any moment. That managed to resolve itself; hopefully this will too.

[Matt W]

Apologies if someone has already linked to this
http://www.washingtonspeakers.com/pr...Game.07.05.pdf

It's a report on a wargame/brainstorming session held in 2005 by "The Atlantic" magazine. The results (and opinions) make interesting reading. Incidentally, the pdf also mentions a 1961 treaty that - if NK is invaded - obliges China to commit troops in support of North Korea.

[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

[headquarters]

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 .

[General Pain]

enter the north north-korean jungles with one missile - and fire it away against the Nork elite - hopefully hitting the target. Any GM will probably say the elite was at a tea/torturing party at one of their slave-camps so the fight must move there.

Obstacles include loads of Norks in various combat effectivnes in jungle warfare, ending in a glorius stealth mission in one of the palaces of the Nork Elite. Ramafacations would include anything from global economic instability , increased oil prices to all out global war.

...puts ideas to my mind it does

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by headquarters

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.

Well, the ROK Army could quite successfully repel an invasion by the North. Reunification is quite another matter -- the primary unifying force would have to come from the North Korean and South Korean people themselves, just as it did in Germany. You can't force democracy on anyone -- that pretty much goes against the very definition of democracy, and democracy won't take root unless the people of a country are ready for it and want it. That's something Bush and Cheney didn't bother to think about during their ill-conceived and unnecessary invasion of Iraq, and it won't work in Afghanistan either.

[headquarters]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

Well, the ROK Army could quite successfully repel an invasion by the North. Reunification is quite another matter -- the primary unifying force would have to come from the North Korean and South Korean people themselves, just as it did in Germany. You can't force democracy on anyone -- that pretty much goes against the very definition of democracy, and democracy won't take root unless the people of a country are ready for it and want it. That's something Bush and Cheney didn't bother to think about during their ill-conceived and unnecessary invasion of Iraq, and it won't work in Afghanistan either.

I agree. The ROK could repel an invasion- at great cost to their nation .So my statements will only be true if the war takes another form .If the NK come screaming across the DMZ in force ,and the USAF and USN could respond quickly enough ,they would be slaughtered.
Reunification through force would be another matter .