Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

War on the Korean Peninsula: Present-day

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • lemontree
    replied
    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Captain,

    The Chinese will stay out for two reasons.

    1) The Uhna rocket launch site is near the Chinese border. It will be attacked as it is the only launch site capable of reaching North America. Unless the Chinese are directly involved in the planning of the attack, then blue-on-blue risks are too great to be tolerated.

    2) Whoever wins in North Korea (and it ain't going to be North Korea) gets to pay for 25 million illiterate peasant beggars. The Chinese would laughing all the way to the bank watching Seoul go bankrupt. Put it this way, how would you like Pakistan to surrender to India provided India takes over her social services?
    Sir,
    Point taken.
    But with the same logic - would the Chinese permit US/SK presence near its rocket launch sites?

    China knows that it cannot afford a war with the US and loose its biggest market along with the EU.
    The latest news reports suggest that the NK madhatter has toned down things.

    Leave a comment:


  • chanjyj
    replied
    Originally posted by doppelganger View Post
    We have this problem with Bangladeshi illegals over a porous land border. But surely one can defeat, remove the military threat permanently, and give back the country to the people to do what they would? Sink or swim. On their side of a tightly closed off border?

    Difficult?

    I think we did exactly that when we created Bangladesh.
    You cannot compare Bangladesh with North Korea. The differences are too large.

    Leave a comment:


  • doppelganger
    replied
    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    2) Whoever wins in North Korea (and it ain't going to be North Korea) gets to pay for 25 million illiterate peasant beggars. The Chinese would laughing all the way to the bank watching Seoul go bankrupt. Put it this way, how would you like Pakistan to surrender to India provided India takes over her social services?
    We have this problem with Bangladeshi illegals over a porous land border. But surely one can defeat, remove the military threat permanently, and give back the country to the people to do what they would? Sink or swim. On their side of a tightly closed off border?

    Difficult?

    I think we did exactly that when we created Bangladesh.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by lemontree View Post
    The Chinese armed forces have already increased their activity on the border with NK so any SK-US activity will involve the Chinese too. What happens when hostilities break out? China will not abandon its buffer zone of NK.
    Captain,

    The Chinese will stay out for two reasons.

    1) The Uhna rocket launch site is near the Chinese border. It will be attacked as it is the only launch site capable of reaching North America. Unless the Chinese are directly involved in the planning of the attack, then blue-on-blue risks are too great to be tolerated.

    2) Whoever wins in North Korea (and it ain't going to be North Korea) gets to pay for 25 million illiterate peasant beggars. The Chinese would laughing all the way to the bank watching Seoul go bankrupt. Put it this way, how would you like Pakistan to surrender to India provided India takes over her social services?

    Leave a comment:


  • lemontree
    replied
    Originally posted by Tennetc View Post
    Hi Lemontree,

    I don't think so. You are giving too much credit to the Chinese Gov's ability and infuence in foreign land
    Let us wait and watch...

    To Bigfella
    ...and underestimating how dumb the DPRK leadership is. They just got their major ally to cut off their monthly oil supply. Pretty dumb. North Korea is doing what it so often does - trying to bluster its way into getting something. The threats are hollow. The time to worry is not when they are blustering, but when they are quietly building up.
    ...And how do we know that their oil supply has been cut off!!...the news release was from the official Chinese information system. They (the Chinese) want the world to know that they are doing their bit...., but the question is, are they? Do we have any reliable news/media sources in N Korea that can authenticate this independently - NO.

    China has only two options w.r.t NK - blind support or abandon them.

    Granted, that NK leadership are psycho maniacs, but NK economy is in shambles and 85% of Chinese imports sustain the NK economy. The Chinese will have a bigger headache if they abandon NK.

    The Chinese armed forces have already increased their activity on the border with NK so any SK-US activity will involve the Chinese too. What happens when hostilities break out? China will not abandon its buffer zone of NK.

    Leave a comment:


  • tbm3fan
    replied
    After reading all this with interest I am now bummed. Today someone I know, who spent much of the 50's in Korea in Army Intelligence, yearly attends the Naval War College when it comes to San Francisco. He invited me to go along to the Marines War Memorial, to listen to an impressive list of experts, some talking about current events in you know where. He waited too long to let me know as I already had patients scheduled for Saturday eliminating my chance to go

    He will take notes and then contact me for lunch to discuss.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Looking at the map of where they are, this brigade is close to the area of the defections last month. If I were to hazard a guess, regimental level executions is happening across the border and the Chinese brigade is ready for anything, including a mutineering North Korean regiment.

    Leave a comment:


  • chanjyj
    replied
    Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
    Not in the military equation we're talking about, but what's the purpose of this mobilization?
    I believe they are sending a message.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gun Grape
    replied
    To keep the NorKs in Korea and out of the Yanbian Korean Autonomous Prefecture

    The Chinese don't want a flood of refugees

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    A single brigade means nothing.
    Not in the military equation we're talking about, but what's the purpose of this mobilization?

    Leave a comment:


  • Red Team
    replied
    Originally posted by DonBelt View Post
    I read this today: China mobilizing troops, jets near Korea | Washington Free Beacon
    Until I read this it sounded like most pundits (for what its worth) were in agreement that DPRK had worn out it's welcome with China. So how to read this? Is it just prudent precautions on China's part to move up additional military units to the NorK border? Might they be considering moving in to depose Lil'Kim before the RoK and US forces do? Or is it possible they intend to defend the DPRK or prevent American and ROK forces from approaching the frontier?
    I'd wager the former, a (moreso) belligerent North Korea is rapidly becoming more of a liability than an asset to the People's Republic. Also, the absolute last thing the Chinese want is to get into a conflict with their biggest customer.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    A single brigade means nothing.

    Leave a comment:


  • DonBelt
    replied
    I read this today: China mobilizing troops, jets near Korea | Washington Free Beacon
    Until I read this it sounded like most pundits (for what its worth) were in agreement that DPRK had worn out it's welcome with China. So how to read this? Is it just prudent precautions on China's part to move up additional military units to the NorK border? Might they be considering moving in to depose Lil'Kim before the RoK and US forces do? Or is it possible they intend to defend the DPRK or prevent American and ROK forces from approaching the frontier?

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    Originally posted by Red Team View Post
    ...I'm sure someone else can come up with a more clever response than myself.
    Wishful thinking born of desperation. He dearly wants for it to be 1965 or even 1950 again, and for the USAF to gladly discard any semblance of BVR combat and mix it up on the NK's own terms.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    It's going to be a damned ugly win though

    U.S. Army Learns Lessons in N. Korea-like War Game | Defense News | defensenews.com



    WASHINGTON — It took 56 days for the U.S. to flow two divisions’ worth of soldiers into the failed nuclear-armed state of “North Brownland” and as many as 90,000 troops to deal with the country’s nuclear stockpiles, a major U.S. Army war game concluded this winter.

    The Unified Quest war game conducted this year by Army planners posited the collapse of a nuclear-armed, xenophobic, criminal family regime that had lorded over a closed society and inconveniently lost control over its nukes as it fell. Army leaders stayed mum about the model for the game, but all indications — and maps seen during the game at the Army War College — point to North Korea.

    While American forces who staged in a neighboring friendly country to the south eventually made it over the border into North Brownland, they encountered several problems for which they struggled to find solutions. One of the first was that a large number of nuclear sites were in populated areas, so they had to try to perform humanitarian assistance operations while conducting combined arms maneuver and operations.

    One way of doing this was to “use humanitarian assistance as a form of maneuver,” Maj. Gen. Bill Hix, director of the Army’s Concept Development and Learning Directorate, told reporters. The Army dropped humanitarian supplies a short distance from populated areas, drawing the population away from the objective sites, he explained.

    Many of the problems encountered were hashed out with Army leaders at a Senior Leader Seminar on March 19 at Fort McNair in Washington. The event—which included the Army chief of staff, Gen. Ray Odierno, and the vice chief, Gen. John Campbell, along with a collection of three- and four-star generals — was off the record, but under terms of the agreement that allowed a handful of reporters to cover the event, unattributed quotes can be reported.

    One of the major complications was that “technical ISR was not capable of closing the gap” caused by not having human intelligence assets in the country for years before the fight, one participant said. Also, “our ability to get north was hindered by our operational inflexibility,” particularly when it comes to dropping troops into austere, contested areas.

    To move soldiers quickly, Marine Corps V-22 Ospreys quickly inserted Army units deep behind enemy lines, but leaders found that inserting troops far in front of the main force so quickly often caused them to be surrounded, after which they had to be withdrawn.

    Overall, the friendly force ultimately “failed to achieve the operational agility” it needed to succeed, another participant complained, “largely due to the rigidity” of current deployment models. What’s more, the joint force was “able to get the force there quickly, but it was the technical force” that proved more difficult to deploy.

    Another participant agreed, adding “the key challenge was timely access to joint enablers” such as ISR and counter-weapons of mass destruction units, which were desperately needed by the general-purpose ground units.

    While not all lessons learned from the exercise were fully hashed out in this unclassified setting, some officers involved expressed their views of how the past decade of war has influenced how the Army prepares to fight.

    “We’ve had the luxury in the last several wars of a place called Kuwait” from which to launch troops and stage equipment, one officer said. “I think our skills have atrophied in the call you get in the middle of the night,” and in forcible-entry operations from the air and sea. Skills haven’t been kept fresh in doing things such as loading trains full of equipment, and in setting up new command posts, he said.

    Another leader agreed. “We have been spoiled by a command-and-control network that has been established for a decade” in Afghanistan and Iraq, he said, adding that the Army has to get back to training to operate in an austere environment.

    One lesson from Iraq and Afghanistan, reinforced by the Unified Quest game, was that “we’re not going to fight a pure military war again,” one four-star general opined. Instead, being successful in conflict will require a variety of solutions requiring cultural knowledge, political acumen and other intelligence activities. The problem is, according to another officer, that the service needs to better understand the cultures in which it will fight, since “we tend to focus on the clash, when we need to focus on the will” of the local population.

    Gen. Robert Cone, director of the Army’s Training and Doctrine Command, said the difficulties the Army faces in moving troops and materiel around the battlefield again reinforced that “we have significant inter-service dependencies on our ability to move” and that any future fight will be a joint fight.

    When asked about the potential for conflict in North Korea specifically, Cone said that while he thinks the forces the U.S. has today in South Korea “are adequate … the question is what forces are adequate for the problem of loose nukes?”
    Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 02 Apr 13,, 01:34.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X