South Korean military ship sunk by torpedo possibly launched by North Korea.....

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Could be a world-changing event if it was North Korea that fired the torpedo..........

S.Korean ship sinking, North attack suspected: report (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/26/AR2010032602048_pf.html)

[Lathum]

Wow, scary stuff.

[bulletsponge]

looks like NK is looking for a little attention. theyre like a brat kid who pulls on a girls hair to get attention is school

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

looks like NK is looking for a little attention. theyre like a brat kid who pulls on a girls hair to get attention is school

This would be a bit more than hair pulling if they are to blame.

[JonInMiddleGA]

What's it been, about 24 hours since NK promised nuclear attacks on SK and the US?

[-apoc-]

Well considering we are still tied up in the Middle East I am thinking there will be a fuss but this will mostly blow over. We cant really deploy the number of troops there that it would take for this to go full blown. Maybe a nice commando team could go in and take care of this but it might be one of those better the crazy dictator you know than the one you dont.

[JonInMiddleGA]

We cant really deploy the number of troops there that it would take for this to go full blown.

If they actually managed to hit what they were aiming at with a hypothetical nuclear warhead, the last thing we'll be sending in are troops. But a nuclear strike that killed US troops in the area? I have a tough time imagining that anything short of a nuclear response would be accepted by enough of the American people to make failing to do so an option.

[-apoc-]

I was referring to a non-nuclear escalation of the situation involving the ships. If they launched a nuke obviously there would be nothing left of North Korea and rightly so.

[JediKooter]

DAMN YOU HANS BRICKS!!!!!!

[SportsDino]

If North Korea was stupid enough to launch a nuke on South Korea, I think what would happen is our nukes go on a hair trigger, and all the countries around North Korea will back off and say 'just don't go in our backyard'.

Then we would launch a conventional war ass kicking to level their military capacity. If there is anything you can say about the US the ability to rapidly knock out and destroy military hardware is unmatched. Where we have quagmires is where we try to occupy territory, no army except a very brutal one is equipped for that.

I doubt there would be a nuclear response to North Korea other than to stop an eminent threat of further nuclear attack. In either case the American public would be a non-factor. The reaction time required is so miniscule that anything that launches our nukes the public wouldn't have even been aware something happened in South Korea before North Korea would become a radioactive wasteland. The public ego factor is a non-issue... if there is any duration of time long enough for the American public to express an opinion on it what we will end up with is a conventional war in North Korea.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

If they actually managed to hit what they were aiming at with a hypothetical nuclear warhead, the last thing we'll be sending in are troops. But a nuclear strike that killed US troops in the area? I have a tough time imagining that anything short of a nuclear response would be accepted by enough of the American people to make failing to do so an option.

Every time I think about this initially, I say to myself that there's no way in hell North Korea is that dumb. Then I realize we're dealing with a partially paralyzed mad man and I have to rethink that thought.

[Rizon]

DAMN YOU HANS BRICKS!!!!!!

He's going to write a letter saying how angry he is.

[JediKooter]

He's going to write a letter saying how angry he is.

Haha! I'm going to have to watch that movie now.

[Rizon]

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/b49Iwfp8U-U&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/b49Iwfp8U-U&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[Galaril]

Could be a world-changing event if it was North Korea that fired the torpedo..........

S.Korean ship sinking, North attack suspected: report (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/26/AR2010032602048_pf.html)

Having lived in Korea for a decade in the Intel field I will say this would not even come close to starting anything. Seoul is full of NK apologists,sympathizers and sleepers agents so world changing event doubt it especially since Bush is no longer in office though this is one theater I would like us to be much more aggressive in.

[JediKooter]

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/b49Iwfp8U-U&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/b49Iwfp8U-U&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Yes!

[KWhit]

If they actually managed to hit what they were aiming at with a hypothetical nuclear warhead, the last thing we'll be sending in are troops. But a nuclear strike that killed US troops in the area? I have a tough time imagining that anything short of a nuclear response would be accepted by enough of the American people to make failing to do so an option.

Where are you getting that it was nuclear?

[Ksyrup]

I-10! I fuckin' knew it! NO ONE goes for I-10!

[Pumpy Tudors]

Pretty sneaky, sis!

oops wrong game

[Galaril]

If North Korea was stupid enough to launch a nuke on South Korea, I think what would happen is our nukes go on a hair trigger, and all the countries around North Korea will back off and say 'just don't go in our backyard'.

Then we would launch a conventional war ass kicking to level their military capacity. If there is anything you can say about the US the ability to rapidly knock out and destroy military hardware is unmatched. Where we have quagmires is where we try to occupy territory, no army except a very brutal one is equipped for that.

I doubt there would be a nuclear response to North Korea other than to stop an eminent threat of further nuclear attack. In either case the American public would be a non-factor. The reaction time required is so miniscule that anything that launches our nukes the public wouldn't have even been aware something happened in South Korea before North Korea would become a radioactive wasteland. The public ego factor is a non-issue... if there is any duration of time long enough for the American public to express an opinion on it what we will end up with is a conventional war in North Korea.

A conventional air and navy airbased attack would not have as much effect as you would think unfortunate the NKs have been burrowing under ground for the last 60 years and they could literally take there entire society(what there is of it) deep,deep under the mountains. Maybe the newer weapons we have for cutting into bedrock and mountains may get to stuff but I do not think that is at all expected.

[SportsDino]

You get em underground and unable to project further attacks that is all you need to do, smoke em out of the holes as you can. I'd only see the use of nukes if that is determined to be the best tactical response for preventing an attack, not an 'american vengeance' play as Jon describes.

[Galaril]

You get em underground and unable to project further attacks that is all you need to do, smoke em out of the holes as you can. I'd only see the use of nukes if that is determined to be the best tactical response for preventing an attack, not an 'american vengeance' play as Jon describes.

Sure that worked well for us smoking em out from underground in Vietnam:)

[Kodos]

Simple. Just run a hose down the hole. Water 'em out.

[Dr. Sak]

Just drop a few of those bunker bombs and they'll come out with their ears bleeding.

[Dr. Sak]

Simple. Just run a hose down the hole. Water 'em out.

Didn't work for Bill Murray in Caddyshack.

[SportsDino]

I'd rather avoid Vietnam and Fallout 3, we'd only need to smoke out (or bunkerbuster) the military hardware. I'd personally say leave a trail of destroyed military machinery and then ditch the place, launching a missile whenever they try to build anything somewhat sophisticated.

If you make it so the military is afraid to come out of their hole, you let the unwashed villagers do whatever the hell they want. Our problem in Vietnam is we are trying to occupy a territory where people hated us, and were living all around us every day (same in Iraq/Afghanistan). My solution is to not live there, just kill anything we hate that does live there, and leave the mess for them to clean up or prey upon each other.

I doubt they'll be able to keep a repressive closed borders regime when all of their military is sitting scared shitless in a bunker, and when they try to roll a tank to suppress a revolt in a village it gets blown to bits by a bomber.

Basically play to our strength and most importantly, don't present our people or property with any weaknesses by not making it accessible to attack. If we don't have a base crawling with Iraqis or Vietmaneese in close proximity I'd like to see them get close enough to do guerilla tactics. Same with the British in the Revolutionary War, they did reasonably well at occupying strong points, particularly where they had naval support to break up approaching attacks. They sucked ass trying to travel or go cross country, where terrain knowledge played to guerilla strategy. Or in maintaining industrial/civilian capacity when the populace was littered with militants or 'traitors' (from their perspective).

The problem is people consider war to be occupation, and they think with their egos instead of their heads. All we need to do to North Korea is disable its capacity to project attacks on South Korea, we don't need their shitty land, let them rot in it. We don't need the nuclear fallout from that option, the threat being not direct radioactivity or retaliation capability from North Korea, but rather secondary damage to South Korea and China which will make them royally pissed off at us. A nuclear option should only be considered from the standpoint of disabling North Korea launching a nuclear attack on its neighbors, in which case we have enough moral high ground and backup from China (which doesn't want nukes flying in its backyard, bad for business) to at least constrain the costs to environmental damage and not political blowback.

Does this make any sense? An occupation would go exactly as you describe, they'd burrow and we'd spend years digging out guerilla fighters while getting spit on by the people. On the other hand, a military ass whooping, we identify their concentrations of equipment and men, devastate them, and prevent them from controlling the population. We also don't present any targets of opportunity for them to rally the people around.

[flere-imsaho]

SD: That strategy works fine until they start co-locating military hardware with civilians.

[SportsDino]

Na, it continues to work fine... if the target is important enough... kill the civilians. The notion that war is something that can be done cleanly is the greatest tragedy or crime perpetrated on human morality in the past two decades.

I'd probably be considered a person of great evil for even thinking such in our PC culture... but really it is exactly like a hostage situation in a bank heist. Do everything you can to save each hostage, but as the threat to life escalates there is a breaking point where the risk to a particular hostage is outweighed by the cost of more lives.

Are we any better in Iraq with all our supposed smart weapons and 'clean tactics'? Civilian casualty estimates are fairly large, not to mention the daily interference in people's routines with an occupying force and a guerilla war around them constantly for years. At least when it comes to only attacking concentrations of military hardware, after a point the civilians see a Korean tank rolling into their village they are going to run for the hills.

Not to mention there are a lot of conventions of war that hiding among civilians is pretty much a 'war crime', and there are no conventions (other than our culture) saying that civilians cannot die if fighting erupts among combatants entrenched in population centers. IT ALREADY IS HAPPENING, so you can make the argument that my way saves lives, even if on the surface it is more vicious.

Clarification: civilian casualties in recent wars are significantly reduced proportionately to other wars in history. Tactics and technology help a lot to reduce the toll on civilians, but the amount of damage to civilians has and always will be significant. Whether troops are embedded among the populace or not. They should be content that at least we are not firebombing cities for the hell of it anymore (see WWII). If there was to be a war between major powers I would expect the civilian casualty rate and those old tactics to make a return... its easy to take it light when you have a superior advantage, but in a fight for your life against a matched foe you do what you have to.

[flere-imsaho]

Na, it continues to work fine... if the target is important enough... kill the civilians.

Then say goodbye to your public support for your tactics, as learned in Vietnam, Iraq & Afghanistan. So then you're left with an occupying force on the ground, which is a technique you've already discounted.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Although it would be interesting to see SD's tactics in a war that is (quasi) universally thought as justified.

Were people up in arms about Dresden/Hiroshima?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Then say goodbye to your public support for your tactics, as learned in Vietnam, Iraq & Afghanistan.

You believe that civilian casualties had anything significant to do with any lacking public support for our efforts in Iraq & Afghanistan?

Or did you mean international support rather than "public" (which I'd kind of lean toward being more synonymous with "domestic"?

[flere-imsaho]

You believe that civilian casualties had anything significant to do with any lacking public support for our efforts in Iraq & Afghanistan?

I mean that civilian casualties were a direct contributor to diminished support for Iraq especially, but also for Afghanistan, amongst the American populace. In fact, I believe you even agreed as much, in making the case that the average American protesting the war on the basis of civilian casualties was an idiot.

It may be idiocy to believe that civilians shouldn't be harmed in warfare, but its not idiocy to understand that the death of civilians will generally lessen support for a war even amongst the populace of the country doing the killing (even if by accident).

[fantom1979]

I personally believe that if the North ever used nuclear weapons, it would be dangerous for us not to return in kind. There needs to be a world understanding that if you go after one of our allies with nuclear weapons, then we are going to bring the total and complete destruction to your doorstep.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7g0RLyxP13o&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7g0RLyxP13o&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[JonInMiddleGA]

I mean that civilian casualties were a direct contributor to diminished support for Iraq especially, but also for Afghanistan, amongst the American populace. In fact, I believe you even agreed as much, in making the case that the average American protesting the war on the basis of civilian casualties was an idiot.

I'd definitely agree that it can be a factor, I have a tough time imagining that I would call it a particularly significant factor. But I also wouldn't be shocked if I agreed to it in some context, frame of mind, or simply out of time constraint or pure laziness.

[SportsDino]

Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan all were wars of occupation pretty early on. In Vietnam the dumb attempt to maintain basically colonial repression was the whole war to begin with, and to own land you need to occupy... so I don't really see those as examples of what I suggest.

I don't think we have an example of massive declines in public support without a war of occupation being involved. And we have certainly had civilian casualties.

Look at the first Iraq War, not a war of occupation, pretty much a hardware on hardware conflict (to prevent Iraq from performing an occupation). Civilians died in many of the attacks that took place on Iraqi cities, which were aiming for anti-air and communication infrastructure targets. The problem is that military targets are almost always NATURALLY COLOCATED WITH CIVILIANS. That is what a city is, and military equipment (or equipment useful for a war such as radio gear) is scattered over these cities.

I don't recall the massive outcry of public hatred at those casualties in that conflict. It was in the news, it was sad, and there may have been some speeches about the tragedy of unintended casualties in war... and then the news continued on and people cheered as they pretty much completely destroyed the Iraqi armor capacity.

More than anything people hate the feeling of losing, and that comes with the war of occupation. If the news comes up with 'US aircraft and paratroopers destroyed missile launchers with chemical weapons hidden among North Korean hospitals today....' the people would go 'those evil Korean military' and they'd consider it a justified loss.

And don't forget one of the options on the table is nuclear war apparently... which is civilian casulaties of much higher magnitude per unit of military damage.

But I probably won't convince you of this point, so lets just say we disagree on how public support varies based on attacking targets colocated near civilians. I will admit mine is based on mere opinion and observation of historical cases from my interpretation.

[flere-imsaho]

I'd definitely agree that it can be a factor, I have a tough time imagining that I would call it a particularly significant factor. But I also wouldn't be shocked if I agreed to it in some context, frame of mind, or simply out of time constraint or pure laziness.

I believe the context in question was you calling the Bush Administration pussies for not being more aggressive in Iraq because they were concerned about the public opinion fallout that would occur if civilian casualties stepped up even more.

I'd try to find it via search but so many pixels have been killed about Iraq on this board that I doubt I'd find it.

[Autumn]

The point being missed here though is that we don't have the capacity to go after North Korea in a significant conventional way. Not only are troops tied down elsewhere but the military's hardware and equipment has been stretched to the limits and is not available to immediately turnaround in a new large scale conflict.

I don't think anything like that is going to erupt, and partly because we know we can't handle it right now.

[Airhog]

Don't discount the fact that we could in no way stop NK from overrunning South Korea in a short period of time, if they choose to do so. In that scenario, we would have to rely on sending ground forces in.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I believe the context in question was you calling the Bush Administration pussies for not being more aggressive in Iraq because they were concerned about the public opinion fallout that would occur if civilian casualties stepped up even more.

I'd try to find it via search but so many pixels have been killed about Iraq on this board that I doubt I'd find it.

Oh shit, don't bother to hunt it, I'll just stipulate that I said it. Ain't remotely worth the effort of trying to find by searching a crowded topic here. In that context I imagine I'm talking more about not wanting to deal with the whining than about there being a significant portion of the population who gave a damn about it.

[fantom1979]

The point being missed here though is that we don't have the capacity to go after North Korea in a significant conventional way. Not only are troops tied down elsewhere but the military's hardware and equipment has been stretched to the limits and is not available to immediately turnaround in a new large scale conflict.

I don't think anything like that is going to erupt, and partly because we know we can't handle it right now.

I am not 100% sure about this. While the Army and the Marines are without a doubt tied down in Afghanistan and Iraq, I wouldn't be surprised if the Air Force and Navy are pretty bored right now.

[SportsDino]

Although it would be interesting to see SD's tactics in a war that is (quasi) universally thought as justified.

Were people up in arms about Dresden/Hiroshima?

Opinions on Dresden and Hiroshima have been changing over time and demographic. I am not sure on this, but I vaguely believe that general support during the war was high (all that really matters you can argue, because everyone is an armchair general after the war). Probably for most people they simply did not understand what the scope of these actions were or meant.

Also for say England, they had felt the fear of urban bombardment and I'm sure no small amount of 'fair vengeance' public opinion comes into play.

In a fight for all the marbles, public support in my opinion becomes a question of what people think best helps them survive. This is why isolationism was wildly popular in the world wars, people generally hate to get involved in fighting unless they feel they have to.

What we are dealing with is arguably fights to police the world. The stakes are not as high for the public, and on the surface seem like they will never reach a serious threat. Public support for those might be a different beast than Hiroshima... since there is always a feeling of 'do we really need to be here at all?' to combat.

I think if we are reasonably selective of targets (WMD, military hardware being used to kill villagers, large concentrations of equipment, or equipments in aggressive positions towards South Korea) that public support would understand a degree of civilian casualties. Even 'deliberate' ones as I would authorize in the most necessary cases.

At some point the damage gets to a point where NK has trouble maintaining its particular type of control over the populace. In my opinion I'd even foment this as a form of cheap ground warfare (I'm a big fan of taking away the bully's club and seeing how they handle ten times as many angry victims).

[flere-imsaho]

SD: I feel we've gotten away from the original argument, so I'm going to re-boot this:


If you make it so the military is afraid to come out of their hole, you let the unwashed villagers do whatever the hell they want. Our problem in Vietnam is we are trying to occupy a territory where people hated us, and were living all around us every day (same in Iraq/Afghanistan). My solution is to not live there, just kill anything we hate that does live there, and leave the mess for them to clean up or prey upon each other.

My point was that you can continue to oppress a country just fine without much in the way of military hardware. A combination of a loyal military, automatic weapons, and propaganda will work.

Plus, it's easy to say that you'll put the country on lockdown and blow up any military hardware that shows its face, but how long are you willing to spend the money to keep military satellites on 24-hour surveillance and launch $million-a-pop cruise missiles to zap random tanks?


This is not to say that I would be against zapping via remote control a good portion of NK's conventional military capability. My understanding, however, is that we have not done this because it's figured it would encourage an actual invasion and/or use of nuclear weapons and then the situation simply gets more-and-more messy from there.

Also, it is my understanding that SK prevents us from doing this because, in general, they wish to handle their relationship with NK themselves. To which one could argue: "OK fine, if we can't do this our way, then we're leaving." But if we do that, then either NK invades and gets SK's industrial capacity, or they don't but have increased autonomy. Neither situation helps our non-proliferation aims.

Yet another tactic would be a series of targeted assassinations of NK's leaders until either a) the whole country destabilizes and SK can invade and reunite the country or b) a more reasonable leader takes power. However, there's still an effective international ban on this type of thing (adhered to only by certain states, of course), so....

[SportsDino]

Don't discount the fact that we could in no way stop NK from overrunning South Korea in a short period of time, if they choose to do so. In that scenario, we would have to rely on sending ground forces in.

Easier to play defense than offense... we'd have a good portion of the populace that likes their high standard of living and video games on our side. I'd spend troops on the ground in South Korea, I just wouldn't try to occupy North Korea.

Autumn and Airhog make good points though, whether we would be able to mobilize enough forces conventionally in time to head off North Korea occupying South Korea. Even with my confidence in our military capability, I don't know... armies can move fast at that sort of proximity.

I don't think nukes could stop it though, if NK is preparing at all they'd be mobilized on the border, and would we really nuke all of northern South Korea to potentially stop North Korea from occupying northern South Korea? I'm doubtful. Nuking NK proper wouldn't make a difference, their army would be on the move and worst with nothing more to lose.

War sucks no matter what, and it never changes!

[Greyroofoo]

I think the threat is more of NK raining down artillery shells on any town near the DMZ. NK doesn't have any great supply of oil for training tanks or mechanized troops. They're focused more on artillery and special forces (by NK standards).

[Greyroofoo]

Easier to play defense than offense... we'd have a good portion of the populace that likes their high standard of living and video games on our side. I'd spend troops on the ground in South Korea, I just wouldn't try to occupy North Korea.

Years of playing Starcraft will finally pay off!

[flere-imsaho]

You guys are forgetting how close Seoul is to the border. Maybe 10-15 miles?

I'm actually pretty sure NK could shell Seoul from the border just with regular artillery. Further, IIRC, most military analysis believe there's little the U.S. & SK could do to stop an initial, full-on invasion with the amount of manpower on the ground right now and the size of NK's standing army.

[SportsDino]

Ya I see your point flere... you can't stop oppression from afar. I do think it would become a bit more difficult for them though, and given that a part of keeping the people down is keeping them in awe of your power (as well as fear)... its hard to do that with no buildings and no equipment in plain sight. Still it ain't gonna be a happy time just because we blow up some gear, I agree.

I'd be content to just minimize their firepower aimed towards South Korea. Particularly anything that can project long distances (missiles/artillery) and anything mobile. The goal would be to keep them bottled in North Korea long enough to get enough defensive troops in position to head off a ground invasion.... which I'm legitimately scared they could beat us to the punch.

------

As for why we are not in a war with them, I agree on pretty much all of your points. This entire line of thought deals with what happens if NK starts the damage first (and perhaps, whether NK ever explodes a nuke on a target). My assumption is that the line will be crossed and SK, Japan, and even China will be requesting immediate assistance.

[SportsDino]

Years of playing Starcraft will finally pay off!


I hear NK has studied the Zerg Rush extensively!

[molson]

I wonder if North Korea's military is as scary as advertised. Sure, the numbers of troops, etc, is impressive, but the country is an economic catastrophe. Nothing works.

[flere-imsaho]

As for why we are not in a war with them, I agree on pretty much all of your points. This entire line of thought deals with what happens if NK starts the damage first (and perhaps, whether NK ever explodes a nuke on a target). My assumption is that the line will be crossed and SK, Japan, and even China will be requesting immediate assistance.

It's long been my suspicion that our policy vis-a-vis NK is effectively to wait for them to do something stupid enough that even the Chinese will agree something has to be done.

[Airhog]

I wonder if North Korea's military is as scary as advertised. Sure, the numbers of troops, etc, is impressive, but the country is an economic catastrophe. Nothing works.


All they need are rifles for their troops

[molson]

All they need are rifles for their troops

Well, and food. And shoes would be nice. And bullets. And electricity. And some means to transport troops.

[JonInMiddleGA]

until either a) the whole country destabilizes and SK can invade and reunite the country

Given the issues that W Germany had taking on E Germany, I'm not sure whether rational people in SK would really want to try to rebuild a country that largely seems to be a cross between medieval & communist bloc conditions. Nice enough in theory but the practical reality might well be an entirely different matter.

[gstelmack]

Well, and food. And shoes would be nice. And bullets. And electricity. And some means to transport troops.

I'm pretty sure in Vietnam they only needed two of the things mentioned in your list above (food & bullets).

[molson]

I'm pretty sure in Vietnam they only needed two of the things mentioned in your list above (food & bullets).

True, but I think (North) Vietnam had much more functioning government/infrastructure, and a much more stable food supply, than North Korea does right now.

And of course, any hostilities against North Korea would be of a different sort than they were in Vietnam. And the North Koreans aren't tied to their government by religion, or really anything.

I know there was a silly sentiment that Iraqi citizens would "greet us in the streets", but I think we'd actually be dealing with a much more sympathetic populace, and even possibly opposing military, than any other military situation I can think of.

[Edward64]

I wonder if North Korea's military is as scary as advertised. Sure, the numbers of troops, etc, is impressive, but the country is an economic catastrophe. Nothing works.
I've wondered this myself.

One of these days, the NK will be free and they'll face reality ... and cry for the lost generations.

[Crapshoot]

Given the issues that W Germany had taking on E Germany, I'm not sure whether rational people in SK would really want to try to rebuild a country that largely seems to be a cross between medieval & communist bloc conditions. Nice enough in theory but the practical reality might well be an entirely different matter.

Oh, they very much do. This is thinking way-long term; they believe in the one Korea, and believe any North Korean nuke will eventually be a "Korean" nuke.

[Edward64]

Just heard on a news channel (I think abc) that it was an accident.

[Galaril]

You guys are forgetting how close Seoul is to the border. Maybe 10-15 miles?

I'm actually pretty sure NK could shell Seoul from the border just with regular artillery. Further, IIRC, most military analysis believe there's little the U.S. & SK could do to stop an initial, full-on invasion with the amount of manpower on the ground right now and the size of NK's standing army.

Ok, I was an -E3-Sentry US Air Force intel officer (O3)though over a decade back in Korea I see nothing has changed from my sources in the military and in Korea. We must remember that NK constantly screws with the US and SK governments in all sorts of manners knowing one key fact. The US has 85000-100000+ US military and their families along with US expat civilians working living with 20 miles of NK artillery. Also, if NK was to go on the offensive first we would have some real difficulties. First off, it has been long known through intelligence gathered through human intel. sources including defectors that the NK military has 120000 commandos that have been training for the last 20-30 years to infiltrate behind our lines via a fleet of special made radar evading 20,000 wooden biplanes/gliders (I shit you not). there mission would be to kill the Air Force Pilots at Osan AB and Kunsan AB as well as try to damage/destroy our runways and planes along with killing anyone near the airfields mechanics, fuelers, ammo troops etc. hitting our soft underbelly something they picked up from the North Viet Cong no doubt.

The NKs know they could not win an Air/Navy war and so want to force us to fight on our on terms. Anyone who even mentions the nuclear option has no knowledge of this theater since that would only be an option of last resort since the fallout would have extremely adverse affects on South Korea with the prevailing winds in Korea normally blowing southeasterly. Once the NKs took out the Air Force we would have a toe to toe fight in urban areas where our tanks in Korea at least are still not as effective in urban settings due to their size as opposed to some of the newer vehicles like the Stryker units and more maneuverable tanks coming out recently. The South Korean populace would be of little to no help to us and with there being many sympathizers and actually estimates are that there are 10000-20000 sleeper agents among the student populations these days . Also the expectations are that as much as 20-35% of the South Korean
military would defect with another 25-35% defecting shortly after the NKs ground forces enter the Seoul corridor. Those numbers I think may be far lower since Koreans have long throught of the US military in Korea as the ones that should and would do the fighting even among the young military conscription age population.

By the time our heavy bombers B52S an d B1Bs arrived from Guam and the US the North Koreans would certainly occupy Seoul and most of the western coast including Inchon down to Kwangju.

So what would be the best course of action:
1-Do not over react. A guy punches you in the face don't cut his head off with a sword.
2-Longterm solution is in the next five years or sooner pull our military (90%) out of SK and give them what they need through selling them equipment not technology since they can not be trusted with not giving to the NKs to us eagainst us.
3-Once we have our folks out of harms way we force the SKs to be more harsh diplomatically, socially, culturally with their "brothers" in the North our we can just turn the place into a parking lot or
4-Further weaponize the Japanese (China would not like this and would roll right over on the North.

Just my two cents.

[Galaril]

You guys are forgetting how close Seoul is to the border. Maybe 10-15 miles?

I'm actually pretty sure NK could shell Seoul from the border just with regular artillery. Further, IIRC, most military analysis believe there's little the U.S. & SK could do to stop an initial, full-on invasion with the amount of manpower on the ground right now and the size of NK's standing army.

Oh, they very much do. This is thinking way-long term; they believe in the one Korea, and believe any North Korean nuke will eventually be a "Korean" nuke.

Yes they sure do. My wife is South Korean and after we "discussed" this subject I will be sleeping with one eye open.

[Cringer]

This could change the world? So it might actually end the Korean War?

[JediKooter]

there mission would be to kill the Air Force Pilots at...Kunsan AB as well as try to damage/destroy our runways and planes along with killing anyone near the airfields mechanics, fuelers, ammo troops etc. hitting our soft underbelly something they picked up from the North Viet Cong no doubt.



Hey now! Don't fuck with the Wolf Pack!!!

If any attack (ground based) were to happen, it would be more likely during the winter from my understanding. But, those pesky North Koreans are pretty good tunnelers.

[Galaril]

Hey now! Don't fuck with the Wolf Pack!!!

If any attack (ground based) were to happen, it would be more likely during the winter from my understanding. But, those pesky North Koreans are pretty good tunnelers.

Yes, the Wolpack down there is badass. I spent three years at Osan living in the lap of luxury:)

[RainMaker]

Seems like they still don't know, or aren't saying what took down the ship. Seemed to be downplaying any NK involvement although that may be due to the fact their dollar and stocks dropped dramatically after initial reports.

Hasn't the NK threats been just to get more money out of us in aid?

[Galaril]

Seems like they still don't know, or aren't saying what took down the ship. Seemed to be downplaying any NK involvement although that may be due to the fact their dollar and stocks dropped dramatically after initial reports.

Hasn't the NK threats been just to get more money out of us in aid?

Pretty much yes. The regime up there is basically a bunch of extortionists.

[JediKooter]

Yes, the Wolpack down there is badass. I spent three years at Osan living in the lap of luxury:)

Had a lot of fun the year I was at Kunsan. You guys definitely had it better up there in Osan and it wasn't too bad of a bus drive to Seoul from there either.

[SteveMax58]

Hasn't the NK threats been just to get more money out of us in aid?

Apologies for getting all "conspiracy theory" about this...but given my unending distrust of any government...my concern is that NK actually did do this for money and that the SK's & US are calling it an accident due to the obvious implications an "attack" would have.

Obviously I dont know what happened but I think there has to be more to this story than just "NK ship cruises by, SK ship sinks due to an 'accidental' hole in the ship".

[JohnnyBGood]

Apologies for getting all "conspiracy theory" about this...but given my unending distrust of any government...my concern is that NK actually did do this for money and that the SK's & US are calling it an accident due to the obvious implications an "attack" would have.

Obviously I dont know what happened but I think there has to be more to this story than just "NK ship cruises by, SK ship sinks due to an 'accidental' hole in the ship".

And don't forget the artillery exchange... with a "flock of birds." Yea, OK. Clearly a cover up.

Baengnyeong residents had reported hearing gunfire at sea shortly after the Cheonan sank. South Korean officials later confirmed that on of their ships had fired on a radar contact that turned out to be a flock of birds.

[Galaril]

Apologies for getting all "conspiracy theory" about this...but given my unending distrust of any government...my concern is that NK actually did do this for money and that the SK's & US are calling it an accident due to the obvious implications an "attack" would have.

Obviously I dont know what happened but I think there has to be more to this story than just "NK ship cruises by, SK ship sinks due to an 'accidental' hole in the ship".

Actually I am sure this is correct at least as far as what is going on with the NK and SK. I am alittle less willing to say the US is covering it up but they very possibly could be. It is actually ridiculous for someone to joke this is not what is happening.

[JPhillips]

Assuming the explosion was a result of a torpedo it's still going to be very difficult to determine if this came from the central authorities or if it was a rouge captain. I'm not sure command and control is that great in the NK navy.

[molson]

Actually I am sure this is correct at least as far as what is going on with the NK and SK. I am alittle less willing to say the US is covering it up but they very possibly could be. It is actually ridiculous for someone to joke this is not what is happening.

I don't have your experience or perspective of this region, but it's amazing to me the thinking that South Korea would cover up the murder of dozens of its military personal (I'm not doubting it, I'm just saying it amazes me.)

Wouldn't such things give South Korea/U.S/U.N. international support to take things to the next level (whether a military response or not)? How do you build a case later for some kind of intervention when you deny their acts of war at the time? How could they expect anyone to believe them if North Korea later does perform some kind of strike that the U.S/South Korea then choose to acknowledge?

[SteveMax58]

Wouldn't such things give South Korea/U.S/U.N. international support to take things to the next level (whether a military response or not)? How do you build a case later for some kind of intervention when you deny their acts of war at the time? How could they expect anyone to believe them if North Korea later does perform some kind of strike that the U.S/South Korea then choose to acknowledge?

This is where I was going with it. Both in the sense that you have to build the case for "justifiable" military response to the next provocation (if you believe it to be on the table)...as well as acknowledging that this is an unacceptable way to "negotiate" and that there should be deterrance for acts of war.

[Bisbo]

Assuming the explosion was a result of a torpedo it's still going to be very difficult to determine if this came from the central authorities or if it was a rouge captain.

NK must have a "don't ask, don't tell" policy too.

[molson]

Stole this from the earth day thread

This is the North Korea everybody's all afraid of? This is the North Korea that we need to (in theory) cover up the murders of dozens for?

I think their propaganda, and their government "let's make everyone all scared of us" department is the only thing that works in that shithole country.

http://doctorbulldog.files.wordpress.com/2006/10/northkorea-at-night.jpg

[flere-imsaho]

I know there was a silly sentiment that Iraqi citizens would "greet us in the streets", but I think we'd actually be dealing with a much more sympathetic populace, and even possibly opposing military, than any other military situation I can think of.

That's not my understanding. The NK regime has effectively isolated this populace for almost 50 years and subjected them to comprehensive propaganda. There's plenty of evidence from people who have managed to get real accounts out of NK that this is easily the most deluded populace on the planet.

Also, thanks to Galaril for backing up my assertions.

IMO, the only effectively strategy for us, long-term, is to find a way to make this China's problem. NK effectively relies completely on China, and China are more than happy to have NK be a problem for the U.S. and its allies, so some sort of creative way (no, I don't have a good idea) to switch this around would be great.

This, by the way, is the main reason why I don't expect NK to actually use a nuke unprovoked on anyone else - they know it's pretty much the only thing the Chinese couldn't ignore and continue to support them on. I mean, China probably wouldn't even overly chastise NK for a full-scale invasion of SK....

I think their propaganda, and their government "let's make everyone all scared of us" department is the only thing that works in that shithole country.

So what's your solution?

[gstelmack]

The more I read in this thread, the more I am reminded of the Larry Bond novel "Red Pheonix" and how little has changed.

[molson]

So what's your solution?

Depends what problem we're talking about.

[flere-imsaho]

Depends what problem we're talking about.

:rolleyes:

[Galaril]

That's not my understanding. The NK regime has effectively isolated this populace for almost 50 years and subjected them to comprehensive propaganda. There's plenty of evidence from people who have managed to get real accounts out of NK that this is easily the most deluded populace on the planet.

Also, thanks to Galaril for backing up my assertions.

IMO, the only effectively strategy for us, long-term, is to find a way to make this China's problem. NK effectively relies completely on China, and China are more than happy to have NK be a problem for the U.S. and its allies, so some sort of creative way (no, I don't have a good idea) to switch this around would be great.

This, by the way, is the main reason why I don't expect NK to actually use a nuke unprovoked on anyone else - they know it's pretty much the only thing the Chinese couldn't ignore and continue to support them on. I mean, China probably wouldn't even overly chastise NK for a full-scale invasion of SK....



So what's your solution?

Ding-ding-ding you win. that is the only longterm solution is fro China to take care of this preferably through absorbing NK which I believe in the next 100 years or so will happen and possibly SK eventually as well. Having married into Korean culture they have a ton more respect and admiration for China than the west and have no issue giving up some personal freedom for the group which is asian traditional culture anyways. My wife's family always has thought though we get along real well that I am a self-centered individualistic jackass. Pretty accurate actually:)

[Galaril]

The more I read in this thread, the more I am reminded of the Larry Bond novel "Red Pheonix" and how little has changed.

Very true.

[Greyroofoo]

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63L08W20100422

[fantom1979]

NKorea warns of war if punished for ship sinking


[/URL][url="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100520/ap_on_re_as/as_skorea_ship_sinks"]NKorea warns of war if punished for ship sinking - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100520/ap_on_re_as/as_skorea_ship_sinks/print)


SEOUL, South Korea – North Korea said Thursday that South Korea fabricated evidence implicating the North in a torpedo attack in order to pick on the North and any attempt at retaliating for the warship's sinking would be answered with "all-out war."


South Korean President Lee Myung-bak vowed "stern action" for the attack after a multinational investigation issued its long-awaited results Thursday, concluding the North fired a torpedo that sank the Cheonan navy ship March 26 near the Koreas' tense sea border.


"If the (South Korean) enemies try to deal any retaliation or punishment, or if they try sanctions or a strike on us .... we will answer to this with all-out war," Col. Pak In Ho of North Korea's navy told broadcaster APTN in an exclusive interview in Pyongyang.


An international civilian-military investigation team said evidence overwhelmingly proves a North Korean submarine fired a homing torpedo that caused a massive underwater blast that tore the Cheonan apart. Fifty-eight sailors were rescued from the frigid Yellow Sea, but 46 perished in the South's worst military disaster since the Korean War.


Since the 1950-53 war on the Korean peninsula ended in a truce rather than a peace treaty, the Koreas remain locked in a state of war and divided by the world's most heavily armed border.


The truce prevents Seoul from waging a unilateral military attack.


However, South Korea and the U.S., which has 28,500 troops on the peninsula, could hold joint military exercises in a show of force, said Daniel Pinkston, a Seoul-based analyst for the International Crisis Group think tank.


South Korean and U.S. officials also said they are considering a variety of options in response to the warship's sinking, ranging from U.N. Security Council action to additional U.S. penalties.


The exchange of war rhetoric raised tensions, but the isolated communist regime — already under international pressure to cease its nuclear weapons program — often warns of dire consequences against South Korea or Washington for any punitive steps against it. Its large but decrepit military would be no match for U.S. and Korean forces.

The impoverished country is already chafing from international sanctions tightened last year in the wake of widely condemned nuclear and missile tests. U.N. sanctions currently block funding to certain officials and companies, while North Korea is barred from exporting weapons and countries are authorized to inspect North Korean ships suspected of carrying illicit cargo.


South Korea "will take resolute countermeasures against North Korea and make it admit its wrongdoings through strong international cooperation," Lee said during a call with Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, the presidential office said. Lee convened an emergency meeting for Friday.


The White House called the sinking an unacceptable "act of aggression" that violates international law and the 1953 truce. Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama declared his support for South Korea, calling North Korea's actions "inexcusable."


China, North Korea's traditional ally, called the sinking of the naval ship "unfortunate" but stopped short of backing Seoul.


Pyongyang continued its steadfast denials of involvement in the sinking.

[JPhillips]

This is an impossible situation for SK. They can't let this go without any consequences, but a full out war with NK would be a disaster.

[fantom1979]

The truce prevents Seoul from waging a unilateral military attack.

Wouldn't an attack by North Korea on a South Korean warship effectively end the truce? Why would South Korea be bound by an agreement that the North is not adhering to? Statements like this puzzle me.

[DaddyTorgo]

I understand that NKorea has a ton of people, and their proximity to Seoul is worrisome. But do they really have the infrastructure, in terms of guns/bullets/gasoline to effectively utilize their giant army?

Not saying it wouldn't be ugly, but I guess I don't fall into the "we can't win a war with NKorea" camp. Also, wouldn't a surgical strike on Pyongyang to eliminate senior leadership (Supreme Leader & Army generals) result in a significant power vacumn into which other countries (say France or something) could then pour in, offering to help the poor impovrished people of NKorea (and yes I've seen the videos, I know how they've been brainwashed since birth).

I guess I just don't see how we couldn't beat the snot out of them.

[I. J. Reilly]

Wouldn't an attack by North Korea on a South Korean warship effectively end the truce? Why would South Korea be bound by an agreement that the North is not adhering to? Statements like this puzzle me.

I think it means that the US would no longer be bound by the treaty to protect SK. So SK can go, but they might be going alone.

[flere-imsaho]

I understand that NKorea has a ton of people, and their proximity to Seoul is worrisome. But do they really have the infrastructure, in terms of guns/bullets/gasoline to effectively utilize their giant army?

Yes. Mainly because they don't really have all that far to go to overrun South Korea really quickly.

Now of course they'd have trouble holding South Korea, but they know such a war would devolve into insurgent urban warfare and the U.S. really doesn't want to have to do that again.

[bhlloy]

I understand that NKorea has a ton of people, and their proximity to Seoul is worrisome. But do they really have the infrastructure, in terms of guns/bullets/gasoline to effectively utilize their giant army?

Not saying it wouldn't be ugly, but I guess I don't fall into the "we can't win a war with NKorea" camp. Also, wouldn't a surgical strike on Pyongyang to eliminate senior leadership (Supreme Leader & Army generals) result in a significant power vacumn into which other countries (say France or something) could then pour in, offering to help the poor impovrished people of NKorea (and yes I've seen the videos, I know how they've been brainwashed since birth).

I guess I just don't see how we couldn't beat the snot out of them.

The American public can barely stomach a war in Afghanistan and Iraq where the governments are friendly to us, most of the country isn't trying to kill us and the numbers of dead soldiers are in the hundreds per year. There is no way in a million years they are going to go for Vietnam mk II. Like Flere said, it would just degenerate into horrible guerilla warfare plus the Chinese wildcard and the risk that whatever unconventional weapons NK might have get fired on our troops. Seems to me South Korea is on their own on this one.

[DaddyTorgo]

I'm just tired of NKorea. And I feel for the poor people there.

[bhlloy]

DOLA - I think there is no doubt we could and would win that war (as long as China STFO) but I also think it would be uglier than you are suggesting and it would be unbelievably unpopular.

[DaddyTorgo]

Yeah...I guess. Like I said, I'm just tired of them, and ready for them to be over.

[molson]

Maybe the best thing that can happen is North Korea invading South Korea. Then the whole world is involved and you have a Gulf War I scenerio.

But N. Korea seems content to just talk big every so often.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Just curious. At what point do we get that 'oh crap, they're serious' feeling with North Korea. They're literally just a stone's throw away from Seoul. We often don't take their threats and actions very seriously because they are usually just moves to secure more aid. I get the feeling that nothing more than outright provocation would get our attention. And by then, it will likely be too late. I'm honestly surprised that the naval incident hasn't caused more issues to this point.

[flere-imsaho]

Just curious. At what point do we get that 'oh crap, they're serious' feeling with North Korea.

Probably when they start lobbing artillery shells at Seoul. Yes, that late in the game.

I hate to say this, but it's probably a good scenario for the US if NK was to invade, because of the damage it would cause to China's standing as a world power. NK is their pet, and if they're shown to not be able to control their pet, then....

[Rizon]

Yeah, the Chinese can't control their pet. They are also very bad drivers.

[molson]

Ya, and at some point, when North Korea won't stop pooping in your yard, you have to say something to China.

[lighthousekeeper]

the US State Department's official response to some NK Col. talking big again: http://united-baseball.org/board/images/smilies/blyawn.gif

[Galaxy]

What are the chances of something breaking out?

Also, how many troops does the US have stationed in South Korea and Japan?

[Groundhog]

What are the chances of something breaking out?

Also, how many troops does the US have stationed in South Korea and Japan?

I don't think the chances are very good of anything breaking out right now. North Korea likes to keep its name in the headlines. The latest incident is bigger than usual, but I don't think North Korea actually wants to go to war.

No idea as to troop numbers, but I know an American serving in Okinawa and there's a pretty heavy military presence there at least.

[JediKooter]

So wonely, I'm so wonely...

[MrBug708]

Article said 28500 in Korea
According to Wiki, the US has 33K+ in Japan

[molson]

I don't think the chances are very good of anything breaking out right now. North Korea likes to keep its name in the headlines. The latest incident is bigger than usual, but I don't think North Korea actually wants to go to war.



I agree with that, but, sinking a warship is a pretty big deal (if that's what they did). If they keep testing their limits, and increasing the severity of the antics, there has to be a breaking point somewhere.

[Groundhog]

I agree with that, but, sinking a warship is a pretty big deal (if that's what they did). If they keep testing their limits, and increasing the severity of the antics, there has to be a breaking point somewhere.

I think the breaking point would probably be, unfortunately, when North Korea actually launches an invasion or major strike on South Korea.

[JPhillips]

Unfortunately the math is simple. How many dead in Seoul are you willing to put up with to teach the NKs a lesson?

[sterlingice]

As much as I hate to say it we have a lot of agreement in the past few posts across the political spectrum and it's all pointing to the same place. See- we can all agree on some stuff :D

SI

[Galaxy]

Unfortunately the math is simple. How many dead in Seoul are you willing to put up with to teach the NKs a lesson?
Is it really that easy? How long do you risk a crazy NK from doing something big (and with time, get destructive weapons)? It's a no-win situation.

[bhlloy]

South Korea is certainly talking tough this time... interesting to see where it goes from here.

[Galaxy]

U.S., South Korea plan military exercises - latimes.com (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-fg-korea-ship-20100525,0,1989197.story)

[Rizon]

Did someone write NK an angry letter yet?

[Groundhog]

Interesting article from Hitchens that pretty much echoes the thoughts of this thread: http://www.slate.com/id/2254826/

Also interesting was the article's mentioning of the (decreasingly) Korean-speaking province of China that borders North Korea that I'd never heard of before: Yanbian Korean Autonomous Prefecture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanbian_Korean_Autonomous_Prefecture)

[Galaril]

Did someone write NK an angry letter yet?


Not so sure if you are just being sarcastic but I find it interesting how many people who live in say Iowa or some other place 10000 miles from the hot spot are so willing to go straight to bombing. I have a personal issue with this situation being I have all my inlaws living in Seoul. That being said a war outbreak is looking frighteningly close the way things are going.

[jeff061]

I tend to subscribe to the thought that SK would get rolled over. However, wouldn't the retaliation by the US and allies prevent them from doing that? They are not Iraq or Afghanistan, we wouldn't be looking to occupy. I'd think a successful campaign would not be as drawn out and be more successful. Would China back them after them they clearly provoked the situation?

My knowledge of the Korean situation is pretty much nil.

[molson]

Not so sure if you are just being sarcastic but I find it interesting how many people who live in say Iowa or some other place 10000 miles from the hot spot are so willing to go straight to bombing. I have a personal issue with this situation being I have all my inlaws living in Seoul. That being said a war outbreak is looking frighteningly close the way things are going.

I think it was a reference to the Team America: World Police movie.

But there must be ground between angry letters and bombings? SK thinks that NK murdered 46 South Koreans in sinking that ship. It certainly seems silly to sacrifice thousands or more lives as payback for that, but no or limited response guarantees greater and greater North Korean aggression, doesn't it?

[Galaril]

I tend to subscribe to the thought that SK would get rolled over. However, wouldn't the retaliation by the US and allies prevent them from doing that? They are not Iraq or Afghanistan, we wouldn't be looking to occupy. I'd think a successful campaign would not be as drawn out and be more successful. Would China back them after them they clearly provoked the situation?

My knowledge of the Korean situation is pretty much nil.

Correct on point one Jeff. We always said just a speed bump to Seoul know as the 2nd ID. The second point would also be true assuming we are dealing with a rationale group of leaders or people in general. Having lived amongst the Southerners for nearly a decade I would not classify any Koreans (especially my wife) as that. I am certain if a war broke out we would find out if the North had nukes, biological agents and what chemical agents that had because they would be using them. A war on the Korean Pennisula would make the Iraq/Iran Sunni/Shia war of the 80s look like a brawl between Michigan-Ohio St football fans before a game. I hope I am wrong but it seems less likely.

[Sun Tzu]

Typical americans.

"Oh shit, someone over there just started a fight...lets jump in!"

[Galaril]

I think it was a reference to the Team America: World Police movie.

But there must be ground between angry letters and bombings? SK thinks that NK murdered 46 South Koreans in sinking that ship. It certainly seems silly to sacrifice thousands or more lives as payback for that, but no or limited response guarantees greater and greater North Korean aggression, doesn't it?

Oh ok. That was a funny movie. I agree there should be some stages or responses in between. I would assume that anything at all militarily would result in an all out war response from the North. So, not sure what we can do. If we can some how bribe or coerce (former is more likely) China and Russia into not vetoing some type of strong economic sanctions and maybe even a embargo that maybe could work. The other question would be to what end would it be meant to achieve. The doubt they ever would are we and the South looking for a formal apology until the next time they do something like this? Do we think the North leader will step down? It is far more likely what occurs is that either Kim Jong Il launchs an attack or if he backs off the North Korean militaries top generals over throw hm and take over the government which would be really bad. I hate to paint such a bleak picture but welcome to the Korean Pennisula land of bad options and worse ones.

[Galaxy]

I tend to subscribe to the thought that SK would get rolled over. However, wouldn't the retaliation by the US and allies prevent them from doing that? They are not Iraq or Afghanistan, we wouldn't be looking to occupy. I'd think a successful campaign would not be as drawn out and be more successful. Would China back them after them they clearly provoked the situation?

My knowledge of the Korean situation is pretty much nil.

I don't feel that SK would get rolled over. It comes down to the x-factor. Does NK have nukes and does Obama put aside his quest to be popular if war breaks out (we will be involved since NK would be attacking our troops right at the border). Aside from troops, I don't feel NK has the technology, experience, or long-term resources to pull it off. Would NATO get involved and would have any land or military strategy from our allies in NATO? A lot of unanswered questions in my mind.

[Galaxy]

Do we think the North leader will step down? It is far more likely what occurs is that either Kim Jong Il launchs an attack or if he backs off the North Korean militaries top generals over throw hm and take over the government which would be really bad. I hate to paint such a bleak picture but welcome to the Korean Pennisula land of bad options and worse ones.

Kim Jong's son is the heir to the future. And from it sounds like, he is even more bat-crazy than daddy.

[jeff061]

One of the articles I read(who knows what's true though) said the belief in intel circles is that Kim Jong ordered this attack to assert his power within his own government in order to help facilitate a power transfer to his son.

Which would play to Galaril's point of his general's overthrowing him if he gives the perception of going soft.

[Greyroofoo]

So if war does break what are the odds of us seeing a M*A*S*H 2.0 tv show?

[JediKooter]

Kim Jong's son is the heir to the future. And from it sounds like, he is even more bat-crazy than daddy.

That is EXACTLY what they said about Kim Jong before his dad died.

[ace1914]

I know we are obligated to, but wouldn't that spread us VERY thin?

[jeff061]

I don't think it would be as heavy on the ground troops as Afghanistan or Iraq. The intent would be to drive them out of and defend South Korea, not deploy and maintain an indefinite ground presence in Pyongyang.

[ace1914]

War costs money, something we don't have. I don't like continuing as the world's Captain Save 'Em.

[jeff061]

Yeah, well, unfortunately when you have the power of the US you are either Captain Save 'Em or you are everyone's enemy.

[panerd]

I link this for a couple of reasons. (saw it in the comments section of the Hitchen's article) First it is funny how the North Koreans view this situation and interesting how they are spinning it to their people. Second I am so used to a "comments" section nowadays that I laughed at myself when for a split second I thought I would find it at the bottom of a North Korean news release.

News From KOREAN CENTRAL NEWS AGENCY of DPRK (http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm)

Obviously this has been translated into English by someone and both accidental and deliberate mistranslations are possible but I am willing to say this is pretty much 100% accurate. And this is a very scary situation indeed. I am generally anti-war (and most certainly probably will still be if this thing gets worse and US intervention is called for) and I also believe alternate views/conspiracy theories sometimes have huge credence, but I think North Korea's president is certainly just fucking crazy and the US has to do nothing to spin this situation to make him look worse)

[panerd]

I don't think it would be as heavy on the ground troops as Afghanistan or Iraq. The intent would be to drive them out of and defend South Korea, not deploy and maintain an indefinite ground presence in Pyongyang.

I have no doubt that would be the intent but I am pretty certain that we all can agree that by the end we will have much more than the 35K troops currently stationed there. Where exactly the troops or money will come from is a whole other question. UN troops? (EDITED: My original statement would have been true with a Republican or Democratic preisdent but I edited it to take any partisan argument out)

[flere-imsaho]

I don't think it would be as heavy on the ground troops as Afghanistan or Iraq. The intent would be to drive them out of and defend South Korea, not deploy and maintain an indefinite ground presence in Pyongyang.

Urban warfare, street-by-street fighting, with a hostage local populace somewhat indistinguishable from (and possibly even sympathetic to) your enemies. A high likelihood of civilian casualties. A fanatic, brainwashed enemy.

[panerd]

Urban warfare, street-by-street fighting, with a hostage local populace somewhat indistinguishable from (and possibly even sympathetic to) your enemies. A high likelihood of civilian casualties. A fanatic, brainwashed enemy.

Yeah. Wasn't this supposed to be real easy in the 1950's? I think we play too many dice games and computer games when we think these military actions are going to go so smoothly.

[flere-imsaho]

This is the perfect time to make it China's problem.

The thing China wants to avoid, at all costs, is hundreds of thousands of NK refugees streaming across its border (due to famine, war, etc...).

So, go to the Security Council with lots of pious talk about how sanctions need to be tightened even more, due to this latest outrage, talk about how there's huge danger from NK's nuclear activities which requires a clampdown, etc....

Put pressure on China to openly defy all of this to save themselves, or to resolve the root cause of the problem by tugging on the leash of their pet.

[Galaril]

Yeah. Wasn't this supposed to be real easy in the 1950's? I think we play too many dice games and computer games when we think these military actions are going to go so smoothly.

Totally agree. Quite a diifernt situation sitting at Osan AB or even right at the DMZ. It would be a real mess.

[Galaxy]

I have no doubt that would be the intent but I am pretty certain that we all can agree that by the end we will have much more than the 35K troops currently stationed there. Where exactly the troops or money will come from is a whole other question. UN troops? (EDITED: My original statement would have been true with a Republican or Democratic preisdent but I edited it to take any partisan argument out)

NATO? Is South Korea in NATO? If North Korea attacks first, and would without question declare war on us (since they'll be blasting our troops in the region), would the allies in NATO come into play?

[Galaxy]

I don't think it would be as heavy on the ground troops as Afghanistan or Iraq. The intent would be to drive them out of and defend South Korea, not deploy and maintain an indefinite ground presence in Pyongyang.

I don't know. I think the opportunity arises to go and try to take out the top dogs, they would.

How far is Pyongyang from the border?

Would South Korea listen to us if they wanted to take military action? Or would they do what they want, regardless?

Sounds like China is saying no to the U.S. quest for support:

China sits out effort to pressure North Korea - USATODAY.com (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2010-05-25-koreas_N.htm)

Also:

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-25/gates-japan-defense-chief-plan-to-monitor-china-navy-update1-.html

[fantom1979]

Yeah. Wasn't this supposed to be real easy in the 1950's? I think we play too many dice games and computer games when we think these military actions are going to go so smoothly.

It was pretty easy in the 1950's until China got involved. The US led UN troops pushed North Korea from Seoul back north of the 38th in 16 days. The UN troops were at the Chinese border in less than 2 months.

I agree, this is not a video game, but I personally believe that any offensive action by North Korea would result in a swift and decisive response (think January of 1991). The response required to defend and retake Seoul would require assets that are not in high demand in Afghanistan. Air/Sea/Armored. I would not imagine that there would be a lot of insurgent fighting.

That all said, I would prefer that we continue to use our military in other ways. We are treaty bound to protect S Korea, but as for protecting our own borders I would prefer that we continue to focus on Afghanistan/Pakistan, and increase our involvement in Somalia and Yemen.

[DanGarion]

I tend to subscribe to the thought that SK would get rolled over. However, wouldn't the retaliation by the US and allies prevent them from doing that? They are not Iraq or Afghanistan, we wouldn't be looking to occupy. I'd think a successful campaign would not be as drawn out and be more successful. Would China back them after them they clearly provoked the situation?

My knowledge of the Korean situation is pretty much nil.

Really? You think the NK is that strong that they would be able to beat a US backed SK? NK probably already exhausted their entire torpedo cache with the one they used on the SK Ship...

[molson]

I really think North Korea would fold like a cheap lawnchair. This is a third world country that talks tough. They can't finish hotels designed to be a part of their skyline. They can't get electricity running regularly. There's severe food shortages. And the people don't even have religion to fight for.

Not that this is reason enough to start a reckless war.

[lungs]

Really? You think the NK is that strong that they would be able to beat a US backed SK? NK probably already exhausted their entire torpedo cache with the one they used on the SK Ship...

Not that I claim to know much myself about the situation but I've always got the impression that North Korea puts about all they have into the military while their people starve.

Not that they have a world class military, but in terms of resource usage, their military is probably their highest priority. If they were indeed as weak as you make them out to be then why didn't South Korea just roll over them years ago?

Throw China in the equation and there's probably a damn good reason it's been a stalemate for over 50 years.

[JediKooter]

North Korea can not stay in a long haul fight. Anything they do would have to be quick and decisive. I would be surprised if they had enough fuel for their tanks and other vehicles for more than a month, unless that's why China has been buying so much oil these last few years and is stockpilling it for North Korea. Besides, this is the wrong time of year for them to attempt an invasion of South Korea. They'd have to do it when everything is frozen so the tanks and troops that don't sneak through the tunnels can make it over land and not get bogged down.

You have a huge Army base in Seoul. A large air base in Osan, another air base in Kunsan. Then there's Pusan for the Navy and of course all the assets in Japan as well. North Korea would be stupid to attempt anything unless they are backed by Chinese assurances of assistance, be it military or financial or both.

I think with any dictatorship type of regime and it's leader is getting close to either dying or stepping down, you will have a few 'rouges' that try to position themselves as either viable replacements or to show the new regime that they are not weak. So, this dude that was playing Hunt for the Red October sank a South Korean ship, knowing that they are just going to get a harshly worded letter in the end and he shows any new potential bosses not to fuck with him.

That's just my 2 cents.