OT - NKorea Situations

[DuckofTindalos]

Did he? Where do we know this from?

[Jorge_Stanbury]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: tocaff

Today, the North has better missles that can probably be armed with chemical warheads, war heads which could render entire ports unusable and cause enormous civilian casualties depite the claim that there's an NBC suit for everyone in the RoK.

In short, the next armed conflict in Korea won't be a replay of the 1950's; IMO, the missles the North is rapidly developing are a game changer, and should Kimmy boy get his fat fingers on a nuclear device and develop a delivery system, well ...

But how many missiles could be launch before being obliterated by the US retaliatory strikes?

If Israel-Hamas conflict provide some guidance on what to expect, you can see that only the very short range missiles could be hidden from the Israeli strikes

[morganbj]

[:D][:D][:D]

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Did he? Where do we know this from?

I recall it from an in-country S2 brief at the 2nd AD TOC.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: tocaff

Today, the North has better missles that can probably be armed with chemical warheads, war heads which could render entire ports unusable and cause enormous civilian casualties depite the claim that there's an NBC suit for everyone in the RoK.

In short, the next armed conflict in Korea won't be a replay of the 1950's; IMO, the missles the North is rapidly developing are a game changer, and should Kimmy boy get his fat fingers on a nuclear device and develop a delivery system, well ...

But how many missiles could be launch before being obliterated by the US retaliatory strikes?

If Israel-Hamas conflict provide some guidance on what to expect, you can see that only the very short range missiles could be hidden from the Israeli strikes

These quotes are mismatched with their speakers.

[tocaff]

Hmm I think something that I didn't post is being attributed to me. Jorge_S and Joe have posted it and it was Joe who originally put it forth.

No matter what if there is a war there lots of people are going to die, regardless of win, lose or draw.

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin

I found this one really interesting. Part 2 is also there.

It is from the North Korea studies institute in the US

Introducing North Korea

Very interesting and well done. Thanks for posting that link, Gräfin.

[Rising-Sun]

ORIGINAL: tocaff

Hmm I think something that I didn't post is being attributed to me. Jorge_S and Joe have posted it and it was Joe who originally put it forth.

No matter what if there is a war there lots of people are going to die, regardless of win, lose or draw.

Yup that what war is all about, if Japan didnt start the war back when Pearl Harbor was hit, wondering what kinda military and technology would be like now? So we cant start anything yet, otherwise it would make USA look bad. So we have to wait til they start shooting first and i dont like that at all.

[Jorge_Stanbury]

Yes, I once again botchered the "quote" option. [8|]

And yes, lots of people will die if war start... And in this particular scenario, we are talking hundreds of thousands or even millions of (mostly NK casualties).

[AW1Steve]

Deleted

[Jorge_Stanbury]

I think it will depend on the size of the "incident".

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Maybe I'm showing my age

You are, which means you remember the Cold War. Which was the reason for the responses you cite. Times are different now.

[Lecivius]

Times are, politics are not [:(] I see an air campaign if the south gets in over it's head. Even that would be limited as the US has not recovered stock piles from all the shooting in Iraq & Afganistan. And those actions were tame as opposed to what would happen if the north went south. I don't see anyone crossong the 38th. That is one bad, nasty place. I could see some shooting going on, with a hunker down policy on the north while beating more drums.

[tocaff]

I remember an incident where the NK attacks US soldiers with axes and the US troops didn't even fire in self defense.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Maybe I'm showing my age

You are, which means you remember the Cold War. Which was the reason for the responses you cite. Times are different now.

Deleted

[Kwik E Mart]

...that place is crazy...i'll never forget an attempt to lure us into flying into the DMZ with MIJI techniques (Meaconing, Intrusion, Jamming, and Interference) during a departure from Osan...made flying off the soviet coast seem like a pleasure hop...

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: tocaff

I remember an incident where the NK attacks US soldiers with axes and the US troops didn't even fire in self defense.

I think I recall that same incident -- US soldiers were told to clear away some foilage along the DMZ and things went downhill from there.

[bigred]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

I've often wondered why some many people think that the USA will violently respond to an attack on an ally with Nukes or overwhelming force, when our own history shows that we are reluctant to attack North Korea even when our own forces are attacked directly , and we were in a much better situation (due to a much stronger combat force ratio in the USA's favor)?

Maybe I'm showing my age , but does anyone recall USS Pueblo, the USN EC-121 shootdown , the "Secret war" (Which by the way included a direct North assault on the "Blue House"--the executive mansion of South Korea) , murders of US forces in the DMZ on several occassions and incursions from the North into the South too numerous to count. I recall a quote from the 1st LT of Pueblo thinking "our captors seemed awfully smug for people about to be blasted by a Polaris missile". Although LBJ may have been one too send "mixed signals" alternating between "the calvalry to the rescue" (one of his favorite lines) to "runaway!" (My apologies to Monty Python). RMN was seldom known for backing down. Using diplomacy , alternating with carpet bombing , and not really caring about public or congressional approval.

I don't see US leadership showing counter agression to agression. I see back door diplomacy , begging China to interfer on our behalf, and large basket of "messages expressing concern". [:(] What I WOULD hope to see is that if South Korea is attacked , We'd tell the Park administration , "We've got your back". I don't see Kim successfully attacking Japan,Guam or Hawaii. I could see him try. But I see him failing in a humilating manner , which would give the US options of 1) Retaliation 2) "Laughing it off" or 3) Joining in with other allied nations in the region in a show of force, and inviting China to join in. (Which would China in a VERY interesting position. They want to be respected as a "Big power" in the region and joining in would give them both "face" , while allowing them to cuff an "unruly vassal state" which doesn't seem to know it's place. All while acting like a "Good citizen" of the region and improving it's relationship with it's trade partners. (And preventing "Too much" of a regime change" in NK , but putting someone more ammenable to them in the drivers seat.

When I arrived in Korea in 82 my battalion had already rotated to the DMZ from Camp Casey. My company had a three week assignment occupying CPs Oulett and I dont remember the other CP name. As a late arrival to the unit I became the QRF platoon leader for Panmunjom(my first real mission). While there my sister platoon on CP Oulett was probed by north Korean commandos. After the incident the company was told to fill 2 or 3 thousand sand bags to fortify the position. They counted the rounds expended, found blood on the hillside but no bodies(today I wonder if our men just got spooked). I was on night patrol w/ one of my squads every third night. My job was to insure we did not walk into a minefield by accident at night.
I guess my point is while there you never know when something bad will happen.. When young I was not concerned. Today I know better.

[Grfin Zeppelin]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin

I found this one really interesting. Part 2 is also there.

It is from the North Korea studies institute in the US

Introducing North Korea

Very interesting and well done. Thanks for posting that link, Gräfin.

You are most welcome. For me it was an eye opener. It is somewhat long but very informative and surprisingly unbiased.

[DivePac88]

The real situation -