PDA

View Full Version : Korean conflict renewal



reve893
01 Feb 09,, 21:45
Recently North Korea has been more aggressive toward South Korea. Leading many to wonder if North Korea is getting ready for war. South Korea has embraced capitalism and has one of the strongest and technological economies in the world. If North Korea was to invade South Korea who would win? Would the US be involved? and if so to what extent? Would the South Koreans be ready to abandon their materialistic lifestyle for a huge war?

bugs
01 Feb 09,, 21:52
No way..
North korea is a peace loving socialist republic...:)

BudW
01 Feb 09,, 23:30
Of course the USA would be involved, N.Korea after some early gains would be crushed.

Inst
02 Feb 09,, 00:01
The norks are supposed to have a ton of artillery pointed at Seoul. The North Koreans can't win, but it won't be a cakewalk for the South Koreans either.

Kernow
02 Feb 09,, 00:29
I believe that it would be a real scrap, but the outcome would in favour of the South. They have the worlds largest standing Army, whereas the North are fifth. The equipment of the South is far more advanced, and there Tank fleet is vast (2,872), being replaced by the 'Black Panther'. The Navy of the North is large but obsolete. mThe North have more aircraft (1,700), but again an aging fleet, whereas the South has a fleet of 600+, their aircraft air far more advanced. It is rumoured that the North has at least 3 Nuclear Missile War Heads. It has 600 - 700 missiles already facing the South; and yes unfortunately the US would be dragged into the fight as they are already there. They couldn't bolster the forces there because of commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan; perhaps that why the North is Sabre Rattling!!!!!

zraver
02 Feb 09,, 01:01
I believe that it would be a real scrap, but the outcome would in favour of the South. They have the worlds largest standing Army, whereas the North are fifth. The equipment of the South is far more advanced, and there Tank fleet is vast (2,872), being replaced by the 'Black Panther'. The Navy of the North is large but obsolete. mThe North have more aircraft (1,700), but again an aging fleet, whereas the South has a fleet of 600+, their aircraft air far more advanced. It is rumoured that the North has at least 3 Nuclear Missile War Heads. It has 600 - 700 missiles already facing the South; and yes unfortunately the US would be dragged into the fight as they are already there. They couldn't bolster the forces there because of commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan; perhaps that why the North is Sabre Rattling!!!!!

NK would burn Seoul to the ground, they might even occupy it for a short time. But that is as far as they go. Then they get pushed back. They are outmanned, outgunned, out supplied and out allied. The US could have 3-4 divisions there in side of a couple of weeks, the first marine units and airborne units within days. With elements of the 3rd AD, and 25th Inf enroute from Washington and Hawaia along with more marines from 29 palms. The commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq are not all that large.

Plus I think NK would end up getting corn holed by the PLA.

GC13
02 Feb 09,, 03:43
I was under the impression that third-world militaries (such as North Korea) traditionally had a disproportionate focus on their combat power with an atrophied logistics system. That would set them up for the ability to make a terrific first strike against the South, but it would have to be a good one as any protracted struggle would play to their weakness. And considering world support for South Korea... It would become a protracted struggle.

Skywatcher
02 Feb 09,, 04:33
NK would burn Seoul to the ground, they might even occupy it for a short time. But that is as far as they go. Then they get pushed back. They are outmanned, outgunned, out supplied and out allied. The US could have 3-4 divisions there in side of a couple of weeks, the first marine units and airborne units within days. With elements of the 3rd AD, and 25th Inf enroute from Washington and Hawaia along with more marines from 29 palms. The commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq are not all that large.

Plus I think NK would end up getting corn holed by the PLA.

The Norks wrecking the already bad economy in North Asia would probably push Beijing into military intervention, only this time, the PLA is on our side.

HKDan
02 Feb 09,, 10:05
I in no way see this as anything more than an attempt by the Norks to get themselves some attention in the only way they know how. I increasingly have doubts about the ability of NKPA to conduct anything other than the most rudimentary operations, they have simply been too broke for too long. On the other hand, playing devil's advocate, maybe the North sees this is the last real chance they might have to start something. The global economy is in crisis, both the US and South Korea hit particularly badly. The US is heavily committed elsewhere, although this is primarily in the Army and USMC. A few years from now, with an economic recovery and the US largely out of Iraq the odds will be worse for the North. Maybe they realize that the other side is more vulnerable right now than it usually is, decide that this is the best opportunity they are likely to see.

devgupt
02 Feb 09,, 10:45
I had read a novel 'Third World War' by HUmphrey Hawksley (He was a BBC journalist).In the fictitous novel , the Pakistanis and North Koreans join hands to change the world order.
DPRK makes some aggressive moves and this tests the US-South Korea relationship.During a meeting between South Korean PM and American President, the S Korean PM asks America to stay away directly from conflict. He also mentions that DPRK will not use nukes against South Korea beause they are Koreans too.

Was the author correct in this assesment?
In a war involving two Koreas only will DPRk use nukes?

HKDan
02 Feb 09,, 11:26
I think Kim has shown the world pretty clearly how he feels about the lives of his fellow Koreans. I dont think the argument that Kim wont use nukes on the South because they are Koreans holds water.

HKDan
02 Feb 09,, 12:15
Study: 460,000 Troops Needed if N. Korea Collapses
By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
Published: 28 Jan 21:51 EST (02:51 GMT)
Print Print | Print Email

WASHINGTON - The United States and its allies might have to deploy up to 460,000 soldiers to North Korea to stabilize the country if it collapses and an insurgency erupts, a private U.S. study said Jan. 28.

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) think tank outlined what amounted to a worst-case scenario in the event the country descends into total chaos and foreign troops intervene after a failed succession upon Kim Jong-Il's death.
Related Topics

* Americas
* Asia & Pacific Rim
* Land Warfare

The South Korean agency Yonhap, quoting "well-informed intelligence sources," reported this month that Kim, 66, had named his third son, Kim Jong-Un, 24, as successor. Kim is reported to have suffered a stroke in August.

In its 37-page report entitled "Preparing for Sudden Change in North Korea," the influential New York think tank outlined scenarios based on whether the succession is managed, contested or has failed.

"North Korea abuts two great powers - China and Russia - that have important interests at stake in the future of the peninsula. That they would become actively engaged in any future crisis involving North Korea is virtually guaranteed," the CFR said.

The report did not rule out military intervention by foreign powers.

"The prospect of North Korea being absorbed by South Korea and U.S. forces potentially being deployed near China's northeastern border are matters of acute concern," the report said.

"The same fears helped trigger China's entry into the Korean War. Moscow undoubtedly shares many of Beijing's concerns, though Russia appears less poised to intervene should the situation deteriorate," it added.

Foreign military intervention could create another dynamic.

"If former elements of the North Korean military, its security and intelligence forces, or its large special operations force were to resist the presence of foreign forces, the size of the needed stabilization force would escalate dramatically," it said.

"In an insurgency, according to a Defense Science Board study, as many as twenty occupying troops are needed for every thousand persons, implying a force of 460,000 troops," it said.

It pointed out such a force would be more than three times the number of U.S. troops in Iraq.

"Coping with such a contingency would likely be impossible for the South Korean and American forces to manage alone," it added.

The report also raised concerns about North Korea's stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear, biological, and chemical programs.

North Korea tested a nuclear device in 2006 but it has since been pursuing difficult negotiations with the United States, China, South Korea, Japan and Russia to scrap the nuclear programs.

"A possible breakdown over North Korea's stockpile of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) would likely provide even stronger pressures to intervene," it said.

"If the cohesion of the military were to begin to fray, preventing leaking of WMDs, materials and technologies beyond the North's borders would become an urgent priority," it said.

"Although neighboring states share a common interest in preventing such leakage, serious differences could still arise over the necessity and execution of any military operation designed to secure WMDs," it said.

As succession talk increases, the report urged close cooperation between the United States, China and other players in the region to help avert the worst.

Johnny W
02 Feb 09,, 16:12
I think Kim has shown the world pretty clearly how he feels about the lives of his fellow Koreans. I dont think the argument that Kim wont use nukes on the South because they are Koreans holds water.


I think the main question about Kim is his sanity, and that of the other top leaders in NK. Killing South Koreans will not stop him from using Nukes, its the probability that he will likely die from the US response. If North Korea nukes South Korea, the US might respond by nuking Pyongyang, but I think its highly likely they try to find Kim's location and nuke him as well. If he really is as nuts as some think, then he might not care. If on the other hand, he is somewhat sane and doesn't want to die from a nuclear bunker buster, then I don't think he would be willing to use Nukes on SK.

Dreadnought
02 Feb 09,, 17:43
No way..
North korea is a peace loving socialist republic...:)

You cant be serious?:rolleyes:

bugs
02 Feb 09,, 18:26
You cant be serious?:rolleyes:

Lets play the devil`s advocate for a while: :cool:
South Korea spends 28,940,000,000 usd on the military hardware (2.7 % of GDP)
North Korea about 5,500,000,000 usd.
Most of this equipment is obsolete compared to that of the South Korean military and no foreign military troops are stationed in north Korea.

Tarek Morgen
02 Feb 09,, 19:04
that what is know about him tells me that he enjoys his lifestyle way too much to simply sacrifice it in order to destroy SK.

zraver
02 Feb 09,, 19:35
The Norks wrecking the already bad economy in North Asia would probably push Beijing into military intervention, only this time, the PLA is on our side.

Don't confuse a PLA invasion of NK as beign on our side. A unified Korea with US troops stationed there is not in China's interest. They would move into block Northward US expansion and to gain a seat at the table. There might be joint ops but each sides end game is different. If China could engineer a nuclear and US free Korea they would and not under the North- Chinba aint stupid. But if the Choice is a united Korea with US troops and nukes or a divided Korea they will choose a divided Korea.

Dreadnought
02 Feb 09,, 21:09
Lets play the devil`s advocate for a while: :cool:
South Korea spends 28,940,000,000 usd on the military hardware (2.7 % of GDP)
North Korea about 5,500,000,000 usd.
Most of this equipment is obsolete compared to that of the South Korean military and no foreign military troops are stationed in north Korea.

Ok lets, But what charateristics above leads you to believe they are a peace loving socialist republic? If they wanted peace the Korean war could have ended differently instead of a stalemate unsettled. North Korea tends to be the first one to call for war and destruction and will more then likely be the ones to cross the line first before South Korea will.;)

bugs
03 Feb 09,, 04:14
Ok lets, But what charateristics above leads you to believe they are a peace loving socialist republic? If they wanted peace the Korean war could have ended differently instead of a stalemate unsettled. North Korea tends to be the first one to call for war and destruction and will more then likely be the ones to cross the line first before South Korea will.;)

A socialist state could not have a border with a capitalist state. Look at east Germany for instance. Before the wall was raised and even after that East German people try-ed to flee to West Germany. The demilitarized zone is not exactly a wall but serves the purpose as well as a wall.

Dreadnought
03 Feb 09,, 18:05
A socialist state could not have a border with a capitalist state. Look at east Germany for instance. Before the wall was raised and even after that East German people try-ed to flee to West Germany. The demilitarized zone is not exactly a wall but serves the purpose as well as a wall.

True in Germany's case. However Germanys wall fell with Reagan/Gorbachef in office many years ago showing that one political power can infact outrun the other in the old way of thinking. It all depends on how much resources you have and how long you want your people to suffer. Theoretically speaking it is quite feasable for the two to learn to live side by side they just have to let go of old stigmatisims and both decide to have the DMZ removed and allow free passage. Its not the people from my view its the leaders that are screwing everything up and all need to grow up and realize the world is going to change with them or without them or perhaps in Kims case dead or alive.

Even Cuba may come about soon after Castro's death. Raul seems as though he is somewhat open to change and I guess we'll see after Fidel is dead and gone. Kims going to elevate his youngest son to his chair. We shall see what track he will follow, open with new ideas or closed with traditional ideas. Who knows.

Skywatcher
03 Feb 09,, 18:55
Don't confuse a PLA invasion of NK as beign on our side. A unified Korea with US troops stationed there is not in China's interest. They would move into block Northward US expansion and to gain a seat at the table. There might be joint ops but each sides end game is different. If China could engineer a nuclear and US free Korea they would and not under the North- Chinba aint stupid. But if the Choice is a united Korea with US troops and nukes or a divided Korea they will choose a divided Korea.

Well, in the strictest sense, if they are shooting at your enemies and not at you, they would qualify as allies, at least in the short run. :biggrin:

Inst
03 Feb 09,, 20:34
Why would a united Korea require US troops? RoK/China relations aren't all that bad, you know, despite nationalists on both sides acting like asshats.

Skywatcher
03 Feb 09,, 22:30
Why would a united Korea require US troops? RoK/China relations aren't all that bad, you know, despite nationalists on both sides acting like asshats.

I think the concern in Washington is about Seoul and Tokyo.

Tarek Morgen
03 Feb 09,, 22:33
True in Germany's case. However Germanys wall fell with Reagan/Gorbachef in office many years ago showing that one political power can infact outrun the other in the old way of thinking. It all depends on how much resources you have and how long you want your people to suffer. Theoretically speaking it is quite feasable for the two to learn to live side by side they just have to let go of old stigmatisims and both decide to have the DMZ removed and allow free passage. Its not the people from my view its the leaders that are screwing everything up and all need to grow up and realize the world is going to change with them or without them or perhaps in Kims case dead or alive.


When the wall fell Bush senior was in office, not Reagen.

Mercenary
04 Feb 09,, 19:00
China would militarily intervene... but it will in no way want a "unified korea" at its borders ..cause the unified korea would be mostly dominated by S.Korea which is a firm Us ally.. So any chinese military intervention will be limited to preventing US forces from pushing too much into the north...

in such a conflict Kim jong il will ensure that a few nukes are detonated in S.Korea so that he can go down with a "bang"...

Officer of Engineers
04 Feb 09,, 19:04
Kim doesn't have a nuke.

Albany Rifles
04 Feb 09,, 19:17
3 AD from FT Lewis?:confused:

3 AD was disbanded in the early 1990s.

Dreadnought
04 Feb 09,, 20:41
When the wall fell Bush senior was in office, not Reagen.

UMMM it was Reagan that called for it for along time before Bush. Bush senior was Reagans Vice President all he did was follow through with previous policy.;)

HKDan
05 Feb 09,, 01:44
I think its the remaining three brigades of 2ID at Lewis now. All Stryker units. I find it pretty interesting that of the 7 out there, 5 Stryker Brigades are stationed on the Pacific Rim. I think that makes them very likely to figure heavily in any Korea conflict. I'm sure heavy units would be brought over too, but the units that could be brought to bear the fastest would be light infantry, Stryker, and Marine. With only one US heavy brigade left in Korea, that does seem to suggest some confidence in the ability to the South Koreans to outclass the North in Armor.

xinhui
09 Feb 09,, 00:01
Just a reminder, PRC is one of the biggest supporter of a unitied korea under ROK for the
past ten years, especialy during 1992 to 1995. thank Japan

Maeda Toshiie
09 Feb 09,, 08:33
Just a reminder, PRC is one of the biggest supporter of a unitied korea under ROK for the
past ten years, especialy during 1992 to 1995. thank Japan

A peaceful united Korea. Not one that is causing a refugee problem.

xinhui
09 Feb 09,, 18:17
PRC actually burned a lot political capital because of that, but during the early 1990s, before the nuke talk, economic integration with ROK was worth the price. There were a few very writing up on this very topic, if you folks would like, I can cite them.

Inst
10 Feb 09,, 03:54
Kim's plutonium nuke apparently fizzled during the nuke test. Whoops.

xinhui
11 Feb 09,, 05:54
Ship movements signal possible N.Korea missile test
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSSEO302697
SEOUL, Feb 11 (Reuters) - Chinese fishing vessels have moved out of waters near a disputed sea border between the two Koreas, a South Korean military official said on Wednesday, which could signal a North Korean missile test is imminent.

North Korea usually orders its vessels to stay out of Yellow Sea waters off its west coast when it conducts short-range missile tests. China is the closest thing the North can claim as an ally and is its biggest benefactor.

"The (Chinese) fishing boats have disappeared, but no other unusual moves have yet been detected," said an official with South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff who asked not to be named. The official would not comment on a possible missile test.

Impoverished North Korea, angry at the hardline policies of the South's government, in recent weeks has stepped up tension by threatening to reduce its wealthy neighbour to ashes and making moves to test fire its longest-range missile.

Analysts said the steps were aimed at putting pressure on the South and at attracting the notice of new U.S. President Barack Obama, who is sending Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to the region next week to discuss regional security concerns.

"We are hopeful that some of the behaviour that we have seen coming from North Korea in the last few weeks is not a precursor of any action that would up the ante or threaten the stability and peace and security of the neighbours in the region," Clinton said during a new conference in Washington on Tuesday.

It takes weeks for North Korea to prepare a launch of its Taepodong-2 missile, which is eventually supposed to be able to hit U.S. territory. The missile was last launched in 2006, fizzling less than a minute after launch.

The North can easily test-fire short-range missiles, with South Korean government officials telling a leading local daily they suspect such a test may take place soon near the disputed naval border called the Northern Limit Line (NLL).

The NLL was set unilaterally by U.N.-led forces at the end of the 1950-53 Korean War and the North has said it is illegal. The area was the site of deadly naval clashes between the two Koreas in 1999 and 2002.

(Reporting by Jon Herskovitz and Kim Junghyun in Seoul and Arshad Mohammed in Washington; Editing by Nick Macfie and Dean Yates)

xinhui
12 Feb 09,, 18:52
Michael Green wrote the following for the current issue of US Naval College review "Asia in the debate on American Grand Strategy"


Albright
writes critically of former Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe’s security pact
with Australia and his symbolic upgrading of Japan’sDefense Agency to aministry,
suggesting also that the Bush administration pushed the limits of regional
tolerance in cooperating on theater missile defense and encouraging Japan to
send “high-tech” destroyers to the Indian Ocean in support of Operation
ENDURING FREEDOM (p. 179). Lifting restrictions further on Japan’s security

role, she warns, would “likely spur China into an even more rapid buildup of its
own, while pushing Korea into a closer relationship with Beijing.”