Russia to strike the DPRK directly????

[Jay]

wudnt it be too hard to advocate the usage of neutron bombs on another country for issues like this. this only reinforces that countries against US shud develop nukes at any cost.
i dont think its nice to propogate such message across the board.

p.s.but its already known..the way we reacted to Iraq and NK

[BUFF]

Colonel,

You must love picking on me don't you?

Hey, those are examples. What woud you rather lose with two choices: 4,000 people or 40,000 people?

If you do something militarily your gonna lose lifes, but if you stand around or wait your gonna lose more lifes including civilians/soldiers.

[Officer of Engineers]

Given those two choices, then I didn't do my job and neither did anyone else above me.

M21,

Haven't babysat in a long time. Yeah, I remember being the Capt in trying to curb the enthusiasim. Being Maj was when I didn't had to babysit anymore and anyone the Sgt Maj sent my way, it was my job to straighten him out.

Friend of mine at the Queen's Own Rifles had two recruits he didn't curb. They thought they were the hot shits after battle school and took off. A year later, the regt got two coffins from South Africa. Those two kids took off to be mercs and the regt was the last known address. It was a hard lesson.

[BUFF]

"Given those two choices, then I didn't do my job and neither did anyone else above me."

There is no such thing as a 'perfect' Colonel...things happen and it's hard to bear but as I've said your not understanding my point.

War is unpredictable. Colonel lets say you lost some men, it doesnt mean you didn't do your job correctly. Shit happens...and it's beyond your control.

[Officer of Engineers]

No son, I've got you Lima Charley. You're not reading me.

And stick to the subject at hand. You've given me two choices, 4,000 or 40,000 dead as a result of a military action. Why? Why should I or any Staff lvl officer accept that? Better yet, why should Ottawa or Washington DC accept that after investing so much money training us? Why shouldn't we, the military, come up with a better option?

I can think of two ways offensively and eight ways defensively to reduce those civie casualties to low hundreds. Why shouldn't I go with those instead? Why shouldn't I do the job that I was trained to do? Why should I be constraint by your stupid scenario?

And you don't read too well, do you. I've lost people. I know perfectly well that such things are beyond my control and the fault is not mine. However, the responsbility is still mine.

You've got alot of growing to do. Don't try to lecture things you don't know anything about.

[Horrido]

Slick Willy lost us 4000 civilians because he couldn't face the political ramifications of foreign nations not liking us if we did what needed to be done...

[Jay]

Colonel,
so what other options do we have if we decide to strike NK...how can we stop the NK killing civilians in SK ??

[Officer of Engineers]

Most obvious one - invade. Drop a couple of battlegroups/task forces behind the DMZ and make those guns irrevelent.

Defensively, start having drills again. Most bombardment deaths are the result of panic, not the actual shelling itself. Bomb shelters (ie subways) are a natural shelter against the worst of NK's actions.

Oderly evac of Seoul. Getting the people out of harm's way is probably the best protection.

However, as TMF members put it, the SKs had been hearing their gov't crying wolf for so long that they ignore the threat.

That does not mean that the military should not invoke these actions under martial law.

[Bill]

Like the Colonel said....Amphibious assault behind the DMZ...make the NK's aim those guns North, instead of South.

Then US soldiers get to die instead of SK civvies.

Both options pretty well blow. I don't think that we would require any nukes. After the initial onslaught, there wouldn't be much the North could do, especially if we land behind all their armies. Turning around an army 180 degrees and maintaining cohesiveness is MUCH harder than it sounds.

The fact is that we feed the majority of the DPRK population. A simple cessation of food aid in conjunction with a flanking phib attack would ensure the North ran out of legs fast...unless the Chinese were dumb enough to help them again.

[Officer of Engineers]

M21,

There are several advantages in attacking behind the DMZ. 70% of the NKPA is within 100 miles of the DMZ. Behind that are much weaker and substantially less ready forces.

The NKPA reherses. They don't train. They reherse right. It's gravy. They reherse wrong. It's graveyard. How do you reherse something that you don't control (ie the tempo of the American offensive).

On top of that, the NKPA relies on surprise. There is absolutely no way that they can match the SKs once the reserves are mobilized, even if the NKs mobilize their reserves. After that, it would be the SKs marching over the NKs.

An American invasion would throw the NKPA surprise out the window.

There will be a fight but one that I have confidence the Americans would win and it won't be a tough fight at that - if they can isolate the bulk of the NKPA to the DMZ which I believe the Americans can do.

[Bill]

Sir, i pretty much agree it would be a 1st class asswhooping, with Kim and Co on the wrong side of said whooping.

I just think that we'd lose more guys than we've grown accustomed to. Nothing like the 1st Korean war, but i could see several(call it 3-5) thousand casualties during the course of the war.

[Jay]

may be we can give bulk of the dirty work to SK/Japan :roll: i dont think NK people wud object it!!

[Bill]

No.

The DPRK is the very definition of a paper tiger.

They really are. They can't even feed themselves.

[Officer of Engineers]

M21,

I can't see the casualties in the 1000s. I can't see an engagement where we would lose more than a pltn at a time. Div lvl engagements are a thing of the past. The battle area has gone (back) to battalion and company. At that level, unless the entire task force gets wiped out (someone would be humping the dog big time), then the losses would be at most a coy (the blocking/delaying force).

I take the example again of 3-7Cav. That they shouldn't have been surrounded in the 1st place is a given but there was never any doubt that they could have punch their way back out against the Medina. That you shouldn't have to rely on counter-ambush to get you out of an ambush that the recee should have detected is also a given.

Also, we've seen their type of soldiering before - in Vietnam. Against static forces in defence, they're relentless but once they try to manouver, they were slaughtered.

[Bill]

Yeah, pretty hard to argue with all that.

But i dunno, it depends how the scenario plays out. If they fire first and get a lot of our guys in barracks, the first hour of the war could be the messiest of the whole shebang for us.

Let's just say i'm trying to temper my cockiness, and give them some benefit of the doubt. ;)