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: Proposed attack on North's artillery close to Seoul - Any thoughts
JIMF    5/24/2010 5:40:34 PM
"....A surprise attack from B-1 bombers dropping conventional (not nuclear) bombs; warships and submarines launching precision guided cruise missiles from the seas east and west of the peninsula, and South Korean and US artillery firing from south of the DMZ, coordinated to land explosives simultaneously, could trap their targets underground and shock the poorly trained North Korean Army into standing down. Risky? Admittedly, yes. But doing nothing would be to risk another violent North Korean provocation in the unknown future." Richard Halloran, a free lance writer in Honolulu, was a military correspondent for The New York Times for ten years.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT
WarNerd       5/28/2010 7:36:21 PM

1) Deliver a message to North Korean gunners that every crew that fires a single shell towards Seoul will have their sensitive places mutilated before a medieval execution and their families burned on stake. Encourage them not to fire their cannons in a very graphic manner; base the threat on the fact that Seoul is a civilian target. Do your best to make them fear you more than they fear Kim.
 
2) Also deliver a message that promises safety, housing, and modest luxuries to the gunners who comply. Remind them that the war is a lost cause and that they will lose. Also, referring to another solution set I described in another thread, promise 5000 dollars for each lock of a howitzer and 50 dollars for each fuze they bring to enemy troops.
 
- This might be called an offer you can't refuse  

How?  You do not have access to their internal communications and radio messages will be dismissed as propaganda.

3) Tell the rest of the world that you are doing this and that you are not really mutilating or burning anyone. Naturally you'd want to keep your promise of the rewards because you shouldn't deny the American dream from the poor buggers.
----
Ok, that's not rocket science. But the same attributes that make NoK difficult to penetrate also allows creating leverage to yourself in outside media (difficulties into opportunities). Of course there will be government officials monitoring foreign press but not to an extent that would undo the confusion amongst the gunners.
 
There are probably a hundred reasons why this wouldn't work. Main point is that all solutions are not about strict military tactics. 

The foreign and domestic press automatically assumes that any official announcement from the US military is a PSYOPS ploy and ignores it, only anonymous sources contradicting the official announcements can possibly be true.  Our opponents, however, are obviously immaculate and their official pronouncements are repeated verbatim and without contradiction.  So you are screwed.
 
And the Press will cheer if you lose, as you are obviously a warmonger attacking innocent North Korea who never hurt anyone!  http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emembarrassed.gif" alt="" /> 
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar    Logistics and psychwar   5/28/2010 9:05:09 PM
Win those two and the conventional stuff takes care of itself.
 
Gixxer overestimates the DPRK. Its the PRCs who are the tough nut. With them gone, the DPRKs die in place,  It would tale a month, not a few days, and mainly that would be due to DPRK civilian refugees headed south into our path of advance trying to escape from their own army.
 
H.   
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    Think Long term   5/30/2010 10:29:01 PM
Just a parting thought to chew on. In 1991 invading and defeating Iraq SEEMED like something that could easily be done via airpower centric strategies. By about mid 1991 it seemed as if that were true. By the mid to late 1990s the idea of airpower centric zero casualty battles had fully taken root right next to the equally false superimposing of the USSR model onto PRC threat assessments. From post 9/11 to present, we've had the benefit of the school of hard knocks. We now know that a simple operation to liberate Kuwait was in reality just another in the series of ME/SWA military geopolitical action that has roots going back to at least the 1970's. The Iraq wars which seemed easy before shots were fired now look like a huge affair that we are still very much involved with 20 years later in what will be one of America's longest and costliest conflicts all things considered. Again, I would caution anyone who thinks that what this thread talks about is easy to think otherwise. And the proper timeframe here is years, not months. And thats if things go right. Otherwise we are easily looking at a problem that could last a decade or more. History and current facts almost assure that.

Here are some actions that people thought would be over quick where logistics and psywars were waged...

Korean War
Viet Nam
Iraq
Afghanistan 

 ...Except for Viet Nam(were the North ultimately* succeeded) all of these conflicts are still ongoing and have lasted about a decade or more. That speaks for itself with regard to estimations.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       5/30/2010 11:00:21 PM

We now know that a simple operation to liberate Kuwait was in reality just another in the series of ME/SWA military geopolitical action that has roots going back to at least the 1970's.
I think you're being overly generous with your dates here.
modern root cause at the nation state level has been around since the end of WW1
root cause of the tribal conflict (which are more powerful than the nation state conflicts) are over 2000 years and going strong..
 
military force can provide initial force on force destruction, but that is a point in time and doesn't deal with whats inside peoples heads.
 
the ME in absolute terms is carrying tribal baggage from over 5000 years of internicine friction.  creating modern nation states never changed the fundamental factors which cause and continue to provide grief today.  If the tribes were not fighting a religious war against unbelievers then they would swap and change between secular and non secular conflict.  Ultimately these stem from tribal issues and where those tribes sat with respect to their own religious leanings.
 
western input won't change this.

 
Quote    Reply

Photon       5/31/2010 7:10:25 AM
WarNerd:  By now, should it be rather obvious that the powers-that-be of the US should have a stricter control over communications (including both mass media and, more importantly, establishing tighter interpretation of the 'freedom of speech')?
 
Wars should not be waged frivolously.  Furthermore, not if you tolerate a bit too much distraction.
 
My crude analogy:  You are in the middle of a serious chess game.  If you make your moves based on second-guessing folks behind your shoulders, then you are not likely to make the best moves.  What you require is that you must have the operational freedom to make whatever move that is necessary to meet your strategic goals.  In the meantime, strategy = long term, and therefore may not be something that would be popular to those behind your shoulders.  Furthermore, while those who are behind-your-shoulders may become very critical, they do not have personal stake at the eventual outcome of the game.  However, whatever that happens later on in the game, and if you have made wrong moves, you may end up finding your head lopped off, but none of your critics will suffer the same fate.  http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emwink.gif" align="absmiddle" border="0" alt="" />
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/31/2010 1:13:17 PM




We now know that a simple operation to liberate Kuwait was in reality just another in the series of ME/SWA military geopolitical action that has roots going back to at least the 1970's.


I think you're being overly generous with your dates here.


modern root cause at the nation state level has been around since the end of WW1

root cause of the tribal conflict (which are more powerful than the nation state conflicts) are over 2000 years and going strong..

 

military force can provide initial force on force destruction, but that is a point in time and doesn't deal with whats inside peoples heads.

 

the ME in absolute terms is carrying tribal baggage from over 5000 years of internicine friction.  creating modern nation states never changed the fundamental factors which cause and continue to provide grief today.  If the tribes were not fighting a religious war against unbelievers then they would swap and change between secular and non secular conflict.  Ultimately these stem from tribal issues and where those tribes sat with respect to their own religious leanings.

 

western input won't change this.




No, I'm not. Modern root cause is associated with the US Strategy of regional balance of power between Iran and Iraq. That is the specific root cause for the current conflicts involving the United States. 

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       5/31/2010 6:03:05 PM



No, I'm not. Modern root cause is associated with the US Strategy of regional balance of power between Iran and Iraq. That is the specific root cause for the current conflicts involving the United States. 

-DA 



of it is.  the historical emnity between the iraqis and iranians is steeped in history.  prior to shi'ite and sunni  secular issues it was an assyrian - hittite - persian problem - ie a tribal problem.

the US is a modern day extension of the catalyst of millenia gone by.  you have noted no doubt that the sunni shi'ite brawling coninues without any US presence.

the US is an onconvenience in an ongoing struggle between the 2 - andf the State Dept is too dumb to work out that they're being played over a family squabble that goes back in hisory for 5000 years.  The same vehiicle of opportunity in using the US to resolve family squabbles is happeening in Afghanistan where all too late the US had found that backing one tribe has been out of local posturing and that all they've done is walk into the middle not understanding the rules of the game.

the US is a convenient vehicle of opportunity for these tribes and clans to redirect the fight against long festering disputes.

US policy is an afterthought at the tribal level, at the secular level.  The tribes prev used the brits, the russians and even the mongols to provide leverage in some of their problems.

US policy is causing them grief, but at the local level they don't give a foxtrot foxtrot about the US except about what the US can do to further their own needs.  massoud, dostrom  et all all have played the parly and convenient friend card to their benefit.

this isn't a US foreign policy problem, but the US is making a rod for their own back by not looking beyond the bullrushes.

we're all being played, albeit with good intentions.  these people are smarter than the west when it comes to "managing" events

 


 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       5/31/2010 6:06:28 PM
aargh,  a few typos prev, but i guess most will work it out.  not going to retype this when I'm on a 7" netbook and I have fingers like clubs.....
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       6/1/2010 6:47:23 AM

My crude analogy:  You are in the middle of a serious chess game.  If you make your moves based on second-guessing folks behind your shoulders, then you are not likely to make the best moves.  What you require is that you must have the operational freedom to make whatever move that is necessary to meet your strategic goals.  In the meantime, strategy = long term, and therefore may not be something that would be popular to those behind your shoulders.  Furthermore, while those who are behind-your-shoulders may become very critical, they do not have personal stake at the eventual outcome of the game.  However, whatever that happens later on in the game, and if you have made wrong moves, you may end up finding your head lopped off, but none of your critics will suffer the same fate.  http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emwink.gif" />

To continue your chess analogy:
The buggers can be damn hard to ignore when they are screaming in your ears, but that does not give you permission, however tempting, to shoot a couple to make the rest of the yahoos shut up.  http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emangel.gif" alt="" />
 
Quote    Reply

LB    Wrong Question   6/1/2010 3:25:49 PM
The problem with the question is how US centric it is.  It really doesn't matter what the US thinks.  The question of whether to initiate hostilities is a South Korean question.  Militarily decreasing the risk to Seoul short term still leaves South Korea at war with the North in a war that will result in hundreds of thousands of dead South Koreans.
 
Korea provides few, if any, good answers.  South Korea does not want a war.  They do no want the North to suddenly collapse either as they are extremely cognizant of what it cost Germany to suddenly unify.  Thus even were there to be a war they do not to "win" in the sense that winning would mean occupying a defeated foe.  Of course the thing the South wants, which is the North gradually becoming less belligerent and more economically viable, sees no signs of happening either.  China doesn't see North Korea collapsing as positive either.
 

 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics