Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Korea Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: DPRK attack ROK (shelling of small island near NLL)
YelliChink    11/23/2010 4:17:31 PM
Nobody wants to talk about it? I am not sure who ordered the attack, either from the old ugly Kim or the young fat Kim. They are betting that there will be no strong response from either ROK or the US, and they are pretty much right on this one. This is a blatant show of force, posture of intimidation, of what they are capable of. Sadly, appeasement seems more popular than strong action. Like Winston Churchil had said, the free world choose dishonor over war, and will get war anyway.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
YelliChink       11/23/2010 5:41:55 PM
It seems that I have to swallow words that ROK did do something. ROKMC K9 SPH returned fire based on artillery radar projections. Total of 80 155mm counter battery shells have been fired. KPA used 122mm and 152mm artillery pieces probably mainly towed ones placed in fixed positions. Most KPA shells fell on the ROKMC base which K9 SPH were stationed.
 
Quote    Reply

VelocityVector       11/23/2010 9:53:59 PM

I would like to believe the PRC told the Kims to stop with their antics after the Cheonan incident.  A cynical side of me however queries whether the PRC is actually orchestrating these events to help convince our current Administration the true track to peace in Korea is for the US to draw down its presence there and, ultimately, to down-size our involvement in Asia proper and let the regional powers press for positive change.  The cynical side would expect modest trade concessions from PRC in exchange.  I control my cynical side for the most part but still wonder now and then...

v^2

 
Quote    Reply

Slim Pickinz       11/24/2010 1:24:34 AM
"Sadly, appeasement seems more popular than strong action."
 
I would say that appeasement is the better option at this time. The upcoming power transfer within the Kim Dynasty will leave North Korea at its weakest state, with the ailing Kim Jong Il naming a relatively inexperienced Jong Un as his successor. The young pudgy protégé will not have the same level of loyalty from the DPRK military commanders that his father currently enjoys, so the threat of a military coup, as well as an attempt to grab power by one of his brothers, will be quite real during the transition of power. An escalation of hostilities with South Korea could easily result in the collapse of the North Korean government, followed possibly by a Chinese incursion and occupation of the North before the ROK leadership can react and make a decision to cross the DMZ. Such an event would result in several several situations ranging from a Chinese annexation of North Korea based on past territorial claims (less likely), to a reunification of the Korean peninsula under the condition that American forces are expelled from the country (more likely), thereby removing US influence and combat assets as well as weakening regional resistance to Chinese future ambitions.
 
Limiting the global reaction to such provocations will show the DPRK government that these calls for attention will not result in future concessions or aid from the South and serve only to further isolate the North Korea from its Chinese ally and the rest of the world. The reaction from South Korea to this new attack, ordering counter-battery fire against the aggressors and putting the ROK military on crisis alert with threats of air strikes against missiles bases in the North, is a proper response to the attack as long as North Korea does not further inflame the situation.
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       11/24/2010 1:42:23 AM

I would like to believe the PRC told the Kims to stop with their antics after the Cheonan incident.  A cynical side of me however queries whether the PRC is actually orchestrating these events to help convince our current Administration the true track to peace in Korea is for the US to draw down its presence there and, ultimately, to down-size our involvement in Asia proper and let the regional powers press for positive change.  The cynical side would expect modest trade concessions from PRC in exchange.  I control my cynical side for the most part but still wonder now and then...


v^2



You mean, selling Korea to gain modest trade concession from PRC?
 
Quote    Reply

VelocityVector    If That's The Best You Can Get...   11/24/2010 3:49:57 AM




I would like to believe the PRC told the Kims to stop with their antics after the Cheonan incident.  A cynical side of me however queries whether the PRC is actually orchestrating these events to help convince our current Administration the true track to peace in Korea is for the US to draw down its presence there and, ultimately, to down-size our involvement in Asia proper and let the regional powers press for positive change.  The cynical side would expect modest trade concessions from PRC in exchange.  I control my cynical side for the most part but still wonder now and then...




v^2







You mean, selling Korea to gain modest trade concession from PRC?

Possibly obvious.  Why should the Administration support an industrialized long-term ally when a predominately Muslim archipelago like Indonesia beckons with its rich mineral fields and waiting-to-be-exploited by those-in-the-know business opportunities present?  Surely the President will stick by South Korea, just as Al Gore advocated global warming theory, and not waiver in the face of clever scheming like Chicom moves. /sarcasm  I voted for this SOB in part to send a message BTW, I should have held out for Tea Party to gut the entitlement Republicans with their pro-illegal immigration stance I suppose.  (No illegal immigration, period, send those here back, to Hell with flamethrowers if need be.  Burn 'em Danno, their kids cook faster than the adults I hear.)  You're darn tootin' the Administration would sell out an ally for gain.

v^2

 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       11/24/2010 1:16:37 PM
 
Pictures of aftermath of the howitzer fires.
 
 
http://djyimg.com/i6/1011240354291459.jpg" width="403" height="268" />
 
Quote    Reply

PPR    Options   11/26/2010 10:42:07 AM
I don't think our side realizes the their own leverage.  The North relies on our aid shipments to survive.  If we stop or dramatically reduce shipments each time the North misbehaves, they will get the message.  It may take a while because of the many times we have rewarded bad behavior in the past, but if we are firm and consistent it will work.
 
Certainly China does not want millions of North Korea refugees flooding into China in search of food.  They'll get the message too.
 
Some would argue it is cruel to withhold food from starving people.  I would say it's true--and it is exactly what the North Korean government does with our aid shipments.  They feed their friends trade the rest for weapons and let their own people starve.  Our aid shipments don't feed the people, they keep Kim Jong Il and his thug regime in power.  It's long past time we stopped.
 
Quote    Reply

Patton       12/13/2010 5:36:32 PM

Everyone sounds surprised about the actions of the NKA.  First of all, the war never ended.  No formal instrument of surrender was ever signed.  The war still ,technically, is going on. From 1966 to 1969 a Second Korean Conflict was fought on the DMZ.  The axe murder of a U.S. officer on the DMZ  in 1976-77 by NKA troops almost escalated into open hostilities. Pyongyang has threatened to shell the South Border Fence if the ROK renews its propaganda campaign.  Fire incidents on the DMZ are as common as a cold.  One fact remains clear, and that is NKA troops have not attempted another full scale invasion since 1950.

 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics