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
heraldabc    Got there before I did.    12/11/2010 4:08:27 PM

JSTARs + Global Hawks integrated into the S.K's ISR stack should make 25^(2)km light up disneyland, remember SAR and PESA can tell the dif between a shrub and a battery of BM-21's covered in Shrubs...

There is no doubt that KPA artillery batteries will be destroyed after they open up on ROK population. The question is, how much damage can they incurr before they are neutralized?


How about some sarin gas landed in one of those satellite cities of Seoul where workign people live? Being able to destroy the launchers afterwards doesn't make much difference.

If an attack on New York that killed more Americans than Pearl Harbor generated a political response that can best be described as chaotic and ultimately aimed at the wrong actors, why should the RoKs not act with prudence and circumspection saddled with sucj a clueless ally? It is a myth that the RoK leadership are pusillanimous or that the DPRKs are just blackmailers. What the Koreans play on both sides of the DMZ in their respective rather complex internal polities makes a Chinese game of PRC GO look straightforward and obvious. 
The idea of attacking anything in the north has to take into consideration 'god-emperor' politics. They will fight for their 'emperor'. It for them is a matter of faith. We, Westerners, should not expect North Koreans to think like Beltway bureaucrats, or even the PRC bandits. These are North Koreans; so we have no real good read on them, except that the little monster and his kid are psychopaths by our Western standards, though not theirs, and that their military obeys and carries out these operations, long after even a modern Asian military of a totalitarian state (As the PRC PLA finally did against the Gang of Four)  would have revolted against such madmen.
I do not underestimate the risks here.

Quote    Reply

Mikko       12/13/2010 4:11:34 AM
This possible war is treated in a way different manner than most because no-one assumes a clean, painless fight. As a destroyed western infantry squad surely makes headlines today, almost no-one in democracies wants to risk headlines of companies or battalions with 70% losses dead and wounded (of their own). 

That's what it could be like, against the NorKs. It is the willingness to accept losses in both blood and treasure that makes the NorK so tough nut to crack. It is the political fallout of thousands of American casualties when helping an ally, it is the potential political suicide for the South Korean leadership if their country went from 21st Century to the Dark Ages in a day. I don't mean anarchy or collapse, but the fact that ordinary people would be worrying about a violent death in masses. Not a pleasant concept for a fell-fed software designer or a gas station manager.

Where could you find the spirit of sacrifice in a modern society that has everything going for it in a big picture? Do we fear death so much that playing chicken is out of the picture when the opponent has a car too? I feel that dying is the issue and that members in modern societies are not keen on violent dimension-hopping.

One funky idea came to mind: What if the next NorK provocation was countered by destroying Kim-monuments in the north with B-2's and cruise missiles? I was thinking about the worst possible insult, the worst possible scenario for NorK leadership, and thought that taking down statues and landmarks of political significance could do the trick. Minimal civilian losses (done in the middle of the night) but the architectural symbols of power and unity are taken down and disgraced. Maybe it would be an accuracy issue, maybe not. 

Quote    Reply

C2       12/13/2010 8:39:44 AM
If S.K kicks its ISR into full deployment the moment N.K so much as sneezes in their direction, then sorties F-15s with stand-off weapons into CAP deploys it counter batteries and SEAD/Air superiority sorties start up... if they go to this readiness level effectively then when they do retaliate then they are in a much better position for hitting N.K batteries before they get a second volley in... if they get a first one...

The PATRIOT PAC-3 system can detect ordinance type (Chemical/Biological/Nuclear/Conventional) if any of the first three where fired then they would most like receive a double tap, regardless of delivery system.

These kind of tactics require hard line sacrifices and tough guts to see through, full commitment into a full spectrum war is not something those who enjoy the the 21st century comforts are willing to engage in lightly if at all, but how many hits can S.K take before they lose their cool? 
Quote    Reply

Mikko    bump   4/2/2013 8:51:44 AM
I wanted to bump the thread because the recent South Korean plans of attacking statues and monuments of Kim regime sounded so familiar, and seeing above why they did so made me feel like a freakin' strategist.
Quote    Reply

PPR    My concern   4/5/2013 9:22:57 PM
If we attempted a pre-emptive attack, it would certainly bring action by China, who view North Korea as their client.  Granted, they don't have much control over North Korea, but as long as the North Koreans are only making trouble for US, why should they care?  Also the Chinese have been feeling growing military power over the years and a US in decline.  They may feel the time is right for a move across a broad front.
My concern is that the North Koreans: A) have begun to believe their own propaganda, or B)  Feel they can't back down without losing face, or C) are a pretext for a broader war for regional domination.
It isn't so far-fetched as it sounds.  Remember Japan in World War II?  They believed their own propaganda and look what happened.
Kim Jong Un has made statements that nobody outside of North Korea could believe (like threatening to nuke England?)  Why would he make such statements?  Certainly not to intimidate.  The targets of intimidation would find it laughable.  Not for internal consumption, the North Koreans are focused on America and South Korea as their enemies.
This is starting to look like he drank the Kool Aide.
So what do we do about it?  We're right to move forces into place.  If this is a war, we want to be ready.  But I would try to avoid a shooting war.
My checklist for war has three boxes:
1)  Is it worth a fight? (Yes)
2) Are we ready? (Not sure)
3) Can we win? (With the right leadership, yes, but with the leadership we have now, doubtful.)
The best way out of this may be to threaten China's economy:
1) All their oil comes from the Middle East through very narrow straits that we could easily block.
2)  Yes we owe them money, we default or pay off with worthless paper.
3) Their economy is built around exports to us.  It would be far easier for us to replace their supply than for them to replace our demand. (Who else has our combination of wealth and population?  Oh, and can also get the supplies past a naval blockade.)
China's military is not built for global domination. It is built for regional denial.   They can keep us away from China, but they can't protect their global interests.  It might be wise for us to remind them of this by having our ships "escort" some of their oil tankers and cargo ships.
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/5/2013 10:17:30 PM
Too much risk for little gain and uncertain result. -DA
Quote    Reply

smitty237    Lose Lose Lose Scenario   4/6/2013 1:31:09 AM
I am no Obama fan by any stretch of the imagination, but I do not admire his options in this scenario at all. 
A war would cost ten of thousands of lives, and if it goes nuclear that number would rise into the hundreds of thousands (or worse).  We could lose more US troops in a matter of weeks than we've lost in entire years in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.  A war would also be extremely unpopular with Obama's left wing base and would be a disaster for our economy.  We would "win" the war, but if the North collapsed we would be stuck with a big chunk of the costs of reunification.  Even if China moved in and took over the North there would be enormous post-war recovery costs. 
I seriously doubt we will conduct a preemptive attack, because this would surely force the North's hand.  There is even a lot of fear that if we were to take defensive action against a NorK missile launch it could spark a war.  However, if the NorKs launch a missile and we refuse to respond it could serve to embolden Kim. 
Some folks are saying that we need to just extract ourselves from this situation entirely and withdraw all of our forces from the region and allow the Koreans to deal with it themselves, but this would destroy our credibility with our allies and show our enemies that the United States will back down in the face of a fight. 
More than likely Obama is just hoping that this whole crisis will just blow over on its own.  It is probably tempting to make some sort of deal with Kim that will move us away from the brink, but this may only delay the inevitable for another year or two.  Sure, it would be suicidal for Kim to start a war (especially a nuclear war), but he may not be rational any more.  God knows what is going in the panic and paranoi driven North right now.  They may have very well convinced themselves that they are already at war. 
Not the best situation to be in when the best you can hope for is a continued Mexican stand-off. 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       4/6/2013 6:34:32 AM
There are still options to put pressure on China, and in the event of a war with NK prossibly no need.
For example, what if SK and Japan announce that in light of NK increasing threats that they were abrogating the NPT and going to develop their own nuclear response capability unless the NK program is shutdown and dismantled under international supervision. That would present China with 2 potential nightmares courtesy of NK:
* A nuclear armed Japan
* A nuclear standoff over their attempts to control of the China Sea.
Not much China could do but go to war with most the rest of the world, or trigger a coup in the NK.
In the event of a war China want to maintain NK as a buffer between them and the SK/US alliance. If war breaks out with SK and the US the easiest way to maintain that buffer would not be to send in troops to support the Kim regime and piss off all their major trading partners, but to join the alliance and invade NK from the north. Then after the fighting try and impose a situation similar to the partitioning of Germany after WWII. Might appeal to SK if China agrees to underwrite major development and a more open economy along the Chinese model. (SK is afraid of getting stuck with the bill if they invade NK)
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4