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

[MrBug708]

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

[molson]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

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]

Originally Posted by molson

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

SI

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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

[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

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Rizon

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]

Originally Posted by Galaril

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by molson

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Galaril

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]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

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

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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]

Originally Posted by panerd

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]

Originally Posted by panerd

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Also:

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...-update1-.html

[fantom1979]

Originally Posted by panerd

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

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.